Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 23 April 2008 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

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

2. European Union-Latin America and Caribbean Summit (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the European Union-Latin America and Caribbean Summit.

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) The Council welcomes the interest shown by the European Parliament in the strengthening of the strategic partnership between the European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean. We are equally pleased with the active role Parliament has had in encouraging concrete commitments towards this region, which would bring considerable benefits to citizens on both sides.

First I should like to congratulate you for establishing the EuroLat joint Parliamentary Assembly, which will play a crucial role in bringing the citizens of both sides together. The Resolutions that EuroLat adopted during its session in December were a valuable and stimulating contribution to the objectives of the Heads of State or Government from countries on both sides at the summit meeting which is to be held next month. We are equally pleased, Mr President, that you have expressed your interest in participating in the May EU–LAC Summit. In this way, with your participation, the good practice introduced at the summit meeting in Vienna in 2006 will be continued.

The European Union and the Latin American and Caribbean countries have agreed that their summit meeting in Lima, under the title ‘Addressing our People's Priorities Together’, will focus on two key chapters. Firstly: on poverty, inequality and exclusion, three of the topics representing the key challenges for social cohesion. And secondly: on environment, climate change and energy – under the title of Sustainable Development. Regarding the first of the two chapters, poverty, inequality and exclusion, I should like to emphasise that for the European Union social cohesion is of key importance and also an objective which is in line with long-term European traditions. Social cohesion means all three, it means fighting poverty, inequality and exclusion. All three components are inextricably connected. We agree with the Latin American and Caribbean countries that our cooperation should be strengthened in all three areas mentioned. This is why we intend to devote our attention to the following subjects: social security, taxation policies and their efficiency, productive investments for more jobs and for better jobs, a policy to fight against all forms of discrimination, sexual, ethical, religious or any other, the improvement of basic social services and social security networks, and the quality of education.

A significant aspect of social progress is the provision of suitable jobs. As you know, all the agreements between the European Union and the Latin American countries and regions contain articles on cooperation in the field of social policy and commitments to respect the so-called primary labour standards, as defined by the International Labour Organization. During the preparations for the Lima summit meeting, both sides have been looking for ways to encourage jobs which have been defined in this way, especially in small and medium-sized undertakings. At the same time the Slovenian Presidency has been emphasising that greater investment in education, particularly at elementary and vocational level, is of key importance in improving our countries' competitiveness both in the European Union and in the Latin American and Caribbean countries.

The second key chapter of the approaching summit meeting: sustainable development and environment, climate change and energy. We emphasise that poverty is closely related with these issues. Climate change will seriously affect our economies, growth and our policy to reduce poverty. We already know that the most vulnerable groups will probably suffer the most. We are aware, both in the European Union and in the Latin American and Caribbean countries, of the safety risks that will be caused by climate change. We know that failure to act means that the consequences will be much graver than the costs of preventative measures. From the current discussions concerning the statement that is to be adopted at the summit, it is clearly evident that we shall be jointly addressing numerous aspects of the global challenge.

We shall both have to change examples of unsustainable manufacturing and consumption. Provisions for concrete and urgent measures for the sustainable management of forests and the use of resources have to be put in place in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, to stimulate investments in manufacturing with low carbon dioxide emissions, to preserve biodiversity, for the management of water resources, and the like.

Of course, the European Union and the Latin American and Caribbean countries will also give priority to further cooperation in this field within the framework of the United Nations. And in conclusion to this introduction, I would like to thank you for your attention.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentleman, I should like to join the Minister in thanking Parliament for having included this European Union-Latin America and Caribbean Summit on the agenda for its plenary sitting. This will be the fifth top-level meeting between our regions since our strategic partnership was launched at the Rio Summit in 1999.

The Lima Summit will place particular emphasis on two specific topics: firstly, the fight against poverty, inequality and exclusion, and secondly, climate change and energy. The Summit is taking place in a very stimulating climate.

The Latin America-Caribbean region is changing very fast. For the first time, the gross domestic product of the region has increased by an average of 5% over the past five years. Hence public budgets have increased and that is enabling the region to address the risks of social equality, which are still significant. It must not be forgotten that over 200 million people still live in poverty there. The region is also becoming increasingly important internationally as a producer of agricultural products and biofuels.

These developments are part of a political context divided between democracy, which is still the most common system in the region, and a growing trend towards populism, indeed, in some cases, the strengthening of executive power at the expense of parliamentary government and the primacy of law.

As you know, Europe is involved at very many levels. With the region, it has committed itself to resolving those structural problems. Europe is still the main donor for development cooperation, the biggest foreign employer. As the second trading partner for the region, Europe leads the field in investment, which is considerably higher than investment by China. Our general association agreements with Chile and Mexico have had a significant impact on the growth in our trade since they were first introduced. We are now at the third stage of the negotiations for the signature of association agreements with the Andean Community and Central America, which there is every indication will happen in the near future. We are working on promoting and supporting regional integration, sharing the positive experience of Europe in that respect.

Similarly, we are currently negotiating with Mercosur on the possibilities for getting things moving again in the present situation. We have recently signed a strategic partnership with Brazil, which should lead to the initiation of a first joint action plan by the end of this year. The Caribbean region is the first, and so far the only one, to have successfully negotiated an economic partnership agreement with the Union under the Cotonou Agreement.

We are, of course, continuing to support democracy and human rights throughout the region, both through cooperation programmes and also, where necessary and only when requested, through election observation missions.

Finally, I shall outline the priorities for the Summit and the immediate future. Social cohesion and regional integration, in view of their importance for economic and political stability, and multilateralism, since the values of the two regions are very similar, must remain the political priorities for the European Union-Latin America-Caribbean partnership. The main objective of the European Union for the Lima Summit is to consolidate the existing strategic partnership and move it forward in two areas, social cohesion and sustainable development, which will be of crucial importance to our relationship with the region in the immediate future.

As regards social cohesion, the European Commission has been implementing major aid and cooperation programmes to reduce poverty in the region. Forty per cent of the EUR 2.6 billion cooperation and development allocation for the next six years is being used to resolve social cohesion problems.

As regard the environment and climate change, we want to cooperate more with the region in order to meet this global challenge. On the initiative of the Commission, the first European Union-Latin America-Caribbean ministerial dialogue on the environment was opened in March 2008, as a prelude to the Lima Summit. We need to seize the opportunity that is open to us to ratify with our partners the existing relationship between sustainable development and climate change, even if many countries in Latin America still devote very little attention to the problems of climate change, in spite of its negative and sometimes disastrous impact on the region.

Finally, the European Union must emphasise the important role that it continues to play in promoting this regional integration and the positive effect of the integration on the economic and political stability of the sub-regions.

That is the information that I have for Parliament and I shall obviously be very interested in the speeches that follow.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, beyond mere rhetoric, what the EP wants from the ambitious resolution it intends to adopt tomorrow is to match its words with actions, supporting the Lima agenda in terms of poverty and social exclusion as well as protecting the environment and fighting climate change with a raft of measures.

Mr President, we also wish to expand on the arrangements for the association agreements – in which we must have faith and believe – with the Mercosur Customs Union, with the Andean Community and with Central America, so that they can b concluded as quickly as possible, and especially within this parliamentary term, to allow the House to issue its mandatory consent.

We also wish to express our solidarity with all those who have been kidnapped in Colombia, including, of course, Ingrid Betancourt, and again call for their unconditional and immediate release.

Mr President, Latin America has a population of 600 million, it accounts for 10% of the world’s GDP, it is home to 40% of the planet’s vegetable species and has a wealth of exceptional human resources.

For the EU, however, Latin America is not just a market, it is a continent with a shared history and common values, which, not without some difficulty, are apparently becoming consolidated, if not everywhere: freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.

This is the message we wish to send from the European Parliament, which we will repeat at the EuroLat Assembly in Lima next week: we want to see the establishment of a regional strategic association based on values, a bi-regional strategic association with a soul.

Mr President, I feel that this is a wonderful occasion to ask the President-in-Office of the Council and the Commission to make every effort. Indeed, the EP will see to it that the Lima Summit is a resounding success, and you, Mr President, will have the opportunity, on behalf of the House, to send out a clear and well-defined message of the EU’s new commitment to Latin America.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, distinguished empty Chamber, ladies and gentlemen, on 16 and 17 May the heads of state and government of the European Union and the Latin American countries will meet in Lima. That will be an opportunity for them to achieve an historic breakthrough in the bi-regional dialogue between Europe and Latin America and develop a new dimension in relations between our two continents.

One third of the member states of the United Nations are European and Latin American countries. That figure alone should indicate to the Europeans that the transatlantic relationship means more than just Europe's relations with the United States of America. Transatlantic relations mean Europe and Latin America, above all! On almost all the important issues that we debate in this House, the Latin American countries' views dovetail with those of the European Union.

In our resolution, we talk about our ideas on social cohesion, and these ideas are shared in their entirety by all the Latin American governments, whether they are led by the right or the left. We talk about the measures that are essential to protect the environment and the climate, and this meets with great resonance on the Latin American side. Let me point out in passing that none of the climate goals – not one – can be achieved unless the Latin American countries are on board with us.

When we talk about the reform of the international institutions, the reform of the United Nations, about Security Council reform, when we Europeans talk about multilateral policies being the solution to conflicts in the 21st century, all our Latin American partners give us wholehearted support. When we talk about the need to reform the financial systems and bring the international financial markets under control, then nowhere do we meet with greater understanding than in Latin America. Speak to any Argentine politician, whether from the left or the right, and they will tell you exactly what havoc international finance policy can wreak in a country!

When we talk about the food crisis, as we did yesterday, and about the increasing scarcity of food and farmland for food-growing as a result of the production of biomass, and how this is a consequence of environmental policy, we should talk to the Brazilians, and to Latin American politicians. We will find a clear focus on these problems. The increasing scarcity of food is causing price rises and hitting our consumers hard, but they are hitting consumers in Latin America even harder. Nowhere is there stronger backing for Europe, and stronger resonance when it comes to solving current problems, than in Latin America.

In Vienna, at the last Summit, Chancellor Schüssel, as the then President of the Council, said: 'It was marvellous, everyone was able to talk to each other!' That is great, but we cannot afford that to be the only outcome in Lima. We must now achieve tangible agreements with Mercosur, with the Andean Community and with the Central American countries and bring the negotiations to a conclusion.

I do not want to draw a veil over the many problems which exist and which have to be resolved; these have to be addressed as well. What are we going to do about Cuba? Do we want to maintain the sanctions for much longer? The vast majority of the EU Member States want to lift these useless sanctions. There are some who are not in favour, however. What is interesting is that some of the countries which do not want to lift the sanctions are, nonetheless, massively expanding their trade relations with Cuba at present. That will be hard to explain to anyone in the long run. Let us put an end to this policy. Let us remember that bringing about change by fostering closer relations is always a better approach than the isolation championed by George W. Bush.

Of course, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra is right to say that FARC must release the hostages. Colombia, as a country, is a hostage to terrorism, more than any other, and Ingrid Betancourt must be released, and all the other hostages must be released as well.

Relations between the European Union and Latin America could be the key to cooperation between two major world regions. Making the world a more peaceful place, adapting its institutions to the needs of the 21st century, tackling environmental and food problems, developing better financial controls: all these issues are on the agenda in Lima. My Group attaches great importance to encouraging the European Parliament to give far more priority to this policy in future than we have done in the past.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Mr President, a community such as the Latin-Caribbean community, whose entire population on the American continent resembles our own, whom we can speak to in its own languages – Portuguese, French and Spanish, among others – merits special consideration and treatment by the European institutions.

In additional to historical links, we share Christian roots, principles, values and many interests, and so we must continue to elaborate on the bi-regional strategic association already announced at the four Summits of Heads of State and Government preceding the Lima Summit we are discussing today.

This means we can continue to propitiate social, cultural and political rapprochement between our societies, and also in terms of trade, economics, security and the fight against climate change and in favour of sustainable development.

I agree we ought to give this association a full strategic perspective, which, on the heels of those already in place with Mexico and Chile, should lead as soon as possible to negotiations with Mercosur, the Andean Community and Central America and, on the basis of a multicultural vision, allow us to create a global interregional EuroLat zone as a WTO-compatible model envisaging freedom of movement of persons and free commercial and regional trade facilities.

To this end, Europe must make its contribution to the diversification and modernisation of production processes in Latin America with plans for technology transfer and capacity-building, creating the best possible context for investment within a comparable framework of legal certainty, towards Latin American integration and, as the culmination of all this, the eradication of poverty, inequality and exclusion.

We must make intelligent use of the Community funding instruments relating to development cooperation, promotion of democracy and human rights and other programmes in relation to training, education, scientific and technical cooperation, health, emigration, etc.

We ought to create a bi-regional solidarity fund, a conflict prevention centre, a foundation to encourage dialogue, an emigration observatory, and immediately add Mercosur to the EuroLat Parliamentary Assembly.

The future will not wait, Mr President, and uniting both sides of the Atlantic is the West’s challenge in the context of globalisation and the 21st century.

  Inese Vaidere, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, although relations between the European Union and Latin America could be described as dynamic, our potential for cooperation is nowhere near being fully exploited. Now to some practical matters: Latin America is generally rich in energy resources, but demand will increase and it will require the necessary major investments. It is mutually advantageous that there should be equal opportunities in the different Latin American states for our investment – including those in which restrictions have been laid down. For its part, the European Union ought to lend a helping hand in the sphere of renewable energy technologies, since climate change is a shared concern. The reality of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean region is such that the benefits of democracy on some occasions do not reach society as a whole. It is therefore very important to pass on our experience in reinforcing democratic institutions. A stable and secure region with sustainable socio-economic development is in our interests. A transition from donor policy to cooperation between equal partners is both the objective and the result hoped for from our joint work. Thank you.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, firstly I wish to remind the House that here we are discussing a summit with a dubious process, the results of which are certainly unpredictable. Nobody entertains any doubts, in my opinion, as to the importance of improving relations between two of the world’s most populated regions boasting high levels of progress, Europe and Latin America.

It is also true, however, at least at present, judging by the results of previous summits, that there are many unknown factors within this process. For example, beyond the rhetoric, the truth of the matter is that the context of relations between the EU and Latin America, to date at least, has produced little success in terms of regional integration or in reducing poverty levels there.

We all know that it is no easy process to secure specific agreements at such a varied forum with such a wide spectrum of political views as the Lima Summit. Nevertheless, this is why I feel it is relevant to pay close attention to social and political movements in the region moving towards changes in the erstwhile majorities on the American continent. I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate President Lugo on the results obtained in Paraguay, as an example of these changing trends of which we ought to take due note.

I admit that I am highly sceptical about what may emerge from the meeting of the Heads of State in May beyond reiteration of the three commitments already made in the past; the fight against poverty and in favour of social cohesion and sustainable development.

Be that as it may, I still believe it is important not to miss out on this new opportunity as we did in the past. Specifically, I feel two essential aspects here ought to form part of both the discussions and their conclusions. Firstly, we must bear in mind that not only should association agreements between the EU and Latin America be comprehensive, ambitious and balanced, but it is of paramount importance that they make a contribution to people’s human rights and social and economic rights, and to mutual sustainable development and to the reduction of inequalities. This means that, secondly, the current asymmetries between both regions ought to be taken into account, with a specific goal: not to move us closer to what some parties apparently wish to see, a European-style Americas Free Trade Area.

I would also call for the summit to take note of a call made in this House recently to combat the murder of women, feminicides, since I hold this as one of the world’s main challenges at the present time, including in the region concerned.

I also wish to call upon the organisers of the summit, in this case the Peruvian authorities, and more specifically the authorities in Lima, to guarantee participation by civil society. Among other measures, this means that the Enlazando Alternativas civil organisations can obtain the space and facilities they need to arrange their work and debates within the framework of the summit, and actually open up dialogue which has been called for on so many occasions.

Lastly, in relation to Colombia, major measures and, I would say in some cases, even drastic measures, must be implemented in all urgency. However, I am one of those who think – and there are many of us who think the same – that any action in this context must be taken as part of an attempt to find a negotiated end to armed conflict. If this is not the case, I fear there can be no solution or positive results, especially for those whose immediate release we are calling for today, but also for groups of people who are now clearly under threat and in danger due to a large number of factors, not only the guerrilla factions, but other elements, too.

  Willy Meyer Pleite, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Minister, the Fifth Summit certainly has a specific agenda to discuss social exclusion and poverty.

The reality of the situation, ladies and gentlemen, is that a popular response has now emerged to all the policies that have impoverished one of the richest regions on the planet.

The new stance of the people of Paraguay in their election of President Fernando Lugo is the clearest indication of this on the ground in opposition to neo-liberal policies that have impoverished the continent.

The EU must therefore take account of this reality. This is why we feel there must be a new EU position with respect to the Republic of Cuba as part of that new reality.

Minister, in June we will have the opportunity to do away with the old policy of exceptional status that the EU has maintained with the Republic of Cuba, the only country in the world – in the entire world – with which the EU has maintained this exceptional status.

It is now true, with the bilateral state of affairs of the Member States’ relations with Cuba, that this position no longer exists. It has been destroyed, and thus we have a magnificent opportunity to become part of the new reality now being introduced by Latin America and the Caribbean.

Thus we intend to support the joint resolution. I feel that all the EP groups have reached a major compromise to secure this agreement. We will doubtless maintain two amendments. One of these concerns Colombia since, in accordance with the United Nations’ approach, we feel the conflict in Colombia must be solved by agreed negotiation, political negotiation. There is no other solution to the conflict. Here we should also state our opinion that civil society must be an active participant as an alternative to the Summit of Heads of State and Government in Lima.

We likewise intend to call on the Peruvian Government to do all in its power to allow civil society’s Enlazando Alternativas encounters to be held also, thereby offering criticism and alternatives.

  Jens-Peter Bonde, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, Commissioner Barroso was on a sales mission the other day in Ireland. He regretted that President Bush had met 16 different Council presidents during his eight years and praised the Lisbon Treaty for establishing a joint president.

We are currently following the battles between candidates for each competing party, from state to state, on television channels until the American president is elected. How will we choose our president? He will not be elected! There is no election campaign to follow on TV; there are no candidates for primary selection; there are no individuals we can vote for. In Europe, we are leaving it to 27 prime ministers to meet behind closed doors and select a politician from the past: a politician like Mr Blair, who cannot be elected any longer in his own country, or the former Austrian Chancellor, who was voted out of his job in Austria and who may be a candidate of compromise for Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy – the three European leaders who will elect the president for all of us.

They will meet privately behind closed doors and appoint the president whom we shall send to the US and Latin America. Our non-elected president will go to China and Russia and criticise their failing democracy. He – there are no plans for a she – can be accompanied by a Commission president, who is not elected either, and a foreign minister, also hand-picked by a super-qualified majority of 20 of the 27 prime ministers in the Lisbon Treaty Union.

Democracy was born in Europe, 2 500 years ago in Greece. How can a Commission president praise a Treaty in which all the executive functions are hand-picked behind closed doors instead of being the result of the voters’ choice? Too many countries have too often sent to Brussels people they wanted to get rid of at home.

Instead of the lack of democracy in the Lisbon Treaty, we should opt for a Europe of democracies and a democratic Europe where the voters elect all the people who will serve the European citizens in negotiations with other countries.

Commissioner Barroso said in Cork that the Lisbon Treaty would bring the EU closer to its citizens. No, it will not! It will erase parliamentary democracy in 49 new areas and give us legislation and representation mainly by people we cannot elect or select. We, the elected, can be heard in foreign policy, but no one needs to listen. We, the elected, can send proposals, via amendments, to the non-elected in the Commission. We, the elected, can vote for or against Commissioner Barroso, if he is reappointed by 20 of the 27 prime ministers. It is not the recipe for democracy we shall represent in a non-democratic world.

Mr President, thank you for allowing the expression of both critical and constructive views for 29 years in this assembly – the least bad institution in the EU. This may be my last debate with the Commission and the Council. After 29 years I will leave this place to my successor, Hanne Dahl, and I will not be a Member during the coming asparagus season in May. Bye, bye, asparagus, Alsace wine, Munster cheese and the monster travelling circus between Strasbourg and Brussels.

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) The forthcoming European Union-Latin America and Caribbean Summit will be the fifth meeting of senior officials from both regions. The Summit participants will focus on the priorities that require greater attention: fighting poverty, inequality and discrimination, sustainable development, climate change, environment and energy.

As Vice-Chairman of EuroLat, I would like to speak on the environment, and water issues in particular. I have prepared a working paper for the meeting in Lima in which I analyse the present state of this important natural source in the European Union. In the paper I also evaluate the European Union’s assistance to Latin America in relation to water issues, through a survey listing many projects within the scope of this help in areas such as water supply and sanitation, integrated management, research, monitoring and prevention of natural catastrophes.

In conclusion I emphasise the need for a global approach to this issue, through institutional and legislative changes and innovations in the water sector. Access to clean water, and proper solutions to sewage water disposal and sanitation are important preconditions for public health.

  Peter Liese (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, of course, I too would like to wish Mr Bonde personally all the best for the future. Nonetheless, I think it is rather a pity that he felt compelled to repeat his frequent comments about the institutions during this important debate on Latin America, because the subject of Latin America is important in itself. That is borne out by the figures quoted by Mr Schulz. One third of the members of the United Nations will be meeting in Lima. Between us, we represent a billion people and if we can reach agreement, we can have a positive influence on the world's development. In light of globalisation and the challenges we face, notably in relation to China or indeed other countries, it is essential for Latin America and Europe to work together.

Climate change will be an important topic, and the resolutions rightly state that it is the poor who will be hardest hit by climate change. I can speak from experience here: I myself am involved in the work of a small NGO in Central America, and what the people suffered there as a result of Hurricane Mitch and Hurricane Stan is just a small foretaste of what we can expect if we do not get climate change under control. It is good that we agree on so many points here.

There are some points, however, on which we do not yet agree. Here in the House, we voted by a large majority in favour of the inclusion of aviation in emissions trading. Vice-President Barrot is aware of this and has expressed himself in very critical terms on this subject. The rest of the world has attempted to block this move via the ICAO, and unfortunately that includes Latin America. I think this must be a topic for discussion in Lima. If we want to work together to combat climate change, the Latin American countries must also play a constructive role.

Finally, may I say a few words about Cuba. Mr Schulz has said that we should not pursue the same policy as Mr Bush, but we have never done that. We have never applied the kind of economic sanctions – sanctions that affect the Cuban people – that America has imposed. What we have done, in the past, is to make it a priority to ensure that our partners, the democratic opposition, feature in the dialogue.

Oswaldo Payá and the Damas de Blanco have been awarded the Sakharov Prize and we cannot simply revert to 'business as usual' if the Damas de Blanco have still not been able to receive it and, as occurred only last weekend, some of them have been arrested again. We should not forget about our partners in the dialogue with Cuba.

  Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, firstly I wish to express my support for our group chairman and spokesman on this issue, Martin Schulz. In my opinion, EU relations with Latin America are our most important relations and have the greatest future potential, in view of the dimensions involved, as has already been said here, our shared values in the multilateral system of the UN, and the evolution of Latin America, which is showing economic growth and a reduction in poverty.

They are all democratic countries, with the exception of Cuba. The Lima Summit is a good opportunity for the other 49 countries to call on the Cuban authorities to launch a peaceful process of transition to democracy through dialogue, and it is also a wonderful opportunity to establish a genuine strategic and sustainable alliance.

Lastly, to prevent us from falling into some rather typically European romantic temptations with respect to terrorism or organisations which, like the FARC, are now drug-dealing guerrillas, not the romantic paramilitary groups of the 70s, they could also be called upon to abandon violence once and for all, unilaterally and unconditionally.

  Renate Weber (ALDE). – Mr President, I think that human rights and women’s rights should also be a high priority in the relationship between the European Union and Latin America. I would like to draw your attention to a specific situation in Nicaragua. The ban on therapeutic abortion, which was legally imposed in 2006, has already had tragic consequences on women’s health, with all victims of rape, such as a nine-year-old girl or a paraplegic twelve-year-old girl, obliged to go through with their pregnancies although their own lives are at stake.

Moreover, lawyers and human rights defenders are themselves under criminal investigation for incitement to commit crimes, merely because they challenge this inhuman legislation or because they defend doctors. This is unacceptable and the European Union cannot afford to be silent.

Last week, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution on access to safe and legal abortion in Europe, which means that we care about women in Europe. But, if we want to convince our citizens that human rights are values that we genuinely treasure, we must prove that we do not apply double standards with regard to partners with whom agreements negotiations are ongoing.

  Liam Aylward (UEN). – Mr President, the strategic importance of the partnership between the European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean is a very important one. Ever since the 1960s, the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean region have been building closer political and economic ties.

The EU is now the largest donor of aid to these countries, and the EU is the second largest trading partner of Latin America and the Caribbean region. A large element of these EU monies goes to projects which promote social cohesion and combat poverty. Together as political democratic bodies we are working on a range of issues of mutual importance, including the following: addressing the increasing importance of energy and environmental issues, including climate change via the EU Rio Group, working together on many projects to promote conflict resolution, the rule of law, democracy, good governance and human rights, and putting in place a stronger level of third level education links between our two groupings.

Our political, economic and social links must continue to grow. That said, however, we still have our clear differences. I believe that the EU has made the right decision with regard to Brazilian beef imports, and that all food imports into the European Union in the future must accord at all times to the same exact standards which apply to the European farm and food sectors. There must be a level playing pitch at all times with regard to the rules which apply to EU food imports – regardless of where they come from – and to EU-manufactured products.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have already stated on another occasion how strategically important it is for Europe to conclude a special partnership with Latin America, given our obvious sharing of principles, values, culture and interests.

In an effort to go beyond the numerous redundancies contained in the resolution, I believe it must be stressed at the forthcoming meeting that the two continents have an interest in stepping up trade in semi-processed high-tech goods, for the sake of both partners, without an asymmetrical relationship ultimately putting other possible trade partners at an advantage.

This will be useful for both continents, I believe, thanks in part to the fact that Europe’s approach undoubtedly demonstrates greater sensitivity towards sustainable development than for example those of the United States and China. Europe's considerable experience with social organisation and development can also contribute significant added value to bilateral trade. Hence the need, in my opinion, to bolster our commitment to creating the EULAC.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE-DE). – (SL) The events that will take place in Lima in April and May on the parliamentary and governmental line must strengthen the southern dimension of the transatlantic cooperation. It is essential for the development of the strategic partnership between Latin America and the European Union that it takes place in a stable economic, social and political situation. That is why I believe it is of the utmost importance that, given the numerous objectives that accompany our efforts, our efforts are directed primarily towards two crucial objectives. Firstly, towards supporting sustainable economic growth – I am glad that for several years now Latin America has been experiencing economic growth; secondly, towards strengthening regional and inter-regional cooperation.

I think that Latin America is now facing the same challenges as the European Union did during the first years of implementing the common methodology. Thus, I am convinced that the European Union's experience would actually be very applicable in their Continent's attempts to achieve a new quality in regional and inter-regional cooperation, including the achievement of new dynamics. I believe that the word dynamics is very appropriate – we know what difficulties Mercosur encountered in the beginning and, in fact, still does.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have had the opportunity to see the disappearing glaciers of Patagonia. It is a process that is well known also in the European north, and I believe that there could be some unforeseeable developments and/or consequences of these accelerating events that would demand much more cooperation and considerable solidarity, and I hope that the summit meeting in Lima will also pay attention to such possible events.

  Manuel António dos Santos (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, the cooperation between the European Union and Latin America has been a success story. It now has its own particular framework with the creation of the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly which will give fresh impetus and incentive. I would say that this is the first stage in the integration of Members of Parliament of Latin America and this House. I hope that we in the European Parliament will shoulder this responsibility and adopt the Joint Declaration in question so that this can serve as a roadmap for the Summit of Heads of State and Government.

I do not have much time to set out my reasons which is why I will endorse what the Chairman of my political group, Martin Schulz, has said. Although I fully agree with him, I must just make a couple of minor points: the first is that Europe has particular responsibility for solving the problems in Colombia. Europe must fully commit to the Colombia issue and help to ensure stability in that country. It must also quickly find a solution in order to normalise relations between the European Union and Cuba. It makes no sense for the current situation to continue. We must move forward in a spirit of progress and cooperation.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Latin America shares many principles and values with the European Union as a result of their close historical, human and cultural links. You might even say we are natural partners.

The Lima Summit ought to enhance our bi-regional association with Latin America and the Caribbean in all areas, and encourage agreement to take on global challenges together, from climate change to drug trafficking or terrorism.

One of the most predominant problems in Latin America is social inequality. We must assist the countries in this regard, and it is my hope that the Lima poverty eradication agenda is an ambitious one, although obviously there is no substitute for the political will of the governments concerned.

A key factor in the fight against poverty is economic growth, which is facilitated by private investment. Investment, however, requires stable legal frameworks, and I would like to see an undertaking at the Lima Summit in relation to legal certainty. Foreign investors must not be scared away from Latin America, for in this age of globalisation they will have no difficulty finding other regions for their investment.

To strengthen bi-regional relations, including economic and trade relations, the negotiations on the association agreements with the Central American countries and the Andean Community must be speeded up. Hopefully the Lima Summit will also help to overcome the impasse in the negotiations with Mercosur. The agreements with Chile and Mexico ought to push things forward. While we are on the subject, I should say that consideration ought to be given to elevating Mexico’s association with the EU to strategic status.

With a view to forging closer human and educational links, ladies and gentlemen, I also hope that Lima encourages what is now known as the Area of Higher Education, the Common Area of Higher Education, and that we continue to make progress in terms of cooperation between universities and the recognition of studies and qualifications.

This Summit also ought to approve the Euro-Latin American Foundation, a type of think tank for the development of bi-regional relations, and give our relationship some much-needed visibility, since regrettably it is not well known in Europe.

Finally, I hope that the Summit will deliver a renewed commitment to pluralist democracy and respect for human rights in accordance with the profound concept of human dignity, which we support on both sides of the Atlantic. The idea of the political prisoner, Mr President, must be totally eliminated in Latin America, and in Cuba, and violence against dissidents must be stamped out.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, European Union-Latin America and Caribbean summits play a significant role in defining and strengthening the direction of the strategic partnership between our regions. The forthcoming Lima Summit provides a further opportunity to deepen dialogue on matters of crucial importance to both areas. I am therefore pleased to note that the main focus of the Summit will be on issues that are vital in terms of ensuring the ongoing well-being of our societies and contributing to stable economic growth.

On the one hand, the Summit will deal with issues pertaining to social cohesion, notably poverty, inequality, discrimination and social exclusion. I should like to point out that according to estimates by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean in 2007, 36.5% of the population of the region is living in poverty, whilst 13.5% is living in extreme poverty. The figures have improved in recent years, but the problem still calls for commitment from many partners: Member States of the European Union are numbered among the latter.

On the other hand, issues pertaining to sustainable development, environmental protection, climate change and energy represent challenges that are having an increasing impact on the way both continents function. Unquestionably, therefore, there is a need to establish common priorities and ways of working together in order to respond effectively to the forthcoming changes. Reconciling economic growth with the principles of sustainable development is particularly important. This is a very difficult challenge indeed, particularly in the case of developing economies and of those undergoing change.

It should also be borne in mind that cooperation between the EU and Latin America and the Caribbean transcends the two main areas to be dealt with at the Lima Summit.

I should like to point out too that the second ordinary session of the European-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly is to be held in Lima on the eve of the Summit. The European Parliament’s involvement will certainly strengthen the strategic partnership between our regions. Accordingly, I await the results and final declaration of the Fifth European Union-Latin America and Caribbean Summit with great interest.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I welcome the fact that the governments will enter into dialogue on key issues at the European Union-Latin America and Caribbean Summit. Małgorzata Handzlik has just made the point that it is very important that the parliaments should also be increasingly involved in this intercontinental dialogue and contribute to the process.

In my view, it is especially important that there should be stronger contacts between Europeans and the people of South or Latin America and the Caribbean. It is not only business people and tourists but young people, above all, who have an important role to play. We need them if we are genuinely to establish better relations.

In the European Union, we have gained valuable experience with student exchange programmes among the Member States, and this system should now be intensified in our relations with Latin America and the Caribbean as well.

We need young people so that we can find viable and sustainable solutions in future to many of the important issues we face.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Latin America is a changing continent. Changes are occurring on a constant basis, and specifically there have been two major changes in recent months or weeks or days.

The first is Cuba’s policy in terms of how it treats its citizens from an economic and a social perspective; the second change has been brought about by the elections in Paraguay, which would seem to promise a completely different government.

In view of these situations and these changes, how have the Council and Commission reacted to take account of these changes and the possibility of influencing these two countries?

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the countries of Latin America have undertaken far-reaching pension reforms with significant involvement by the World Bank. Europe’s demographic crisis suggests that we should consider whether we are satisfied with legal provisions that promise a relatively good deal despite uncertainty as to the existence of sufficient financial backing to enable those promises to be met. In view of the different experiences of both continents in this regard, it may be worth working together as we consider how to deal with the problem. We need to find a way of enabling people of an advanced age to lead a dignified life, even though they are often in poor health and therefore unable to continue working despite the economic impact of the demographic crisis.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE). – (PT) The parliaments of Latin America and Europe are fundamental to the success of this Summit. They are also fundamental to achieving the two main objectives, which are the integration of Latin America and cooperation between the European Union and Latin America, based on the values defended in this House and in particular on those highlighted by the Chairman of my political group.

However, Mr President, I must point out another aspect, which is that this cooperation and its effectiveness are important not only for the two continents of Latin America and Europe but also, due to the values defended by these two groups throughout the world, for the global context. Through this cooperation, those results not achieved through the Millennium Development Goals, through multilateralism and through the pursuit of those values guiding European integration and the European project can be achieved throughout the world. It is this global aspect that in my view justifies a greater commitment from us all, in particular the parliaments.

  Gabriela Creţu (PSE). – (RO) The historical, social and political conditions in Latin America have put women in a doubly difficult position: on the one hand, they are mostly responsible for the economic production, especially in the rural environment.

On the other hand, they are the favourite victims of forced relocation and dispossession, human trafficking, violence, sexual exploitation and public control over their reproductive capacities.

Under these conditions, taking a gender approach is not only desirable but necessary. For this reason, we request your support for an oral amendment that would support the strengthening of women’s positions and respect for their rights.

IN THE CHAIR: MARIO MAURO
Vice-President

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) I have listened very carefully to the debate on the preparations for the EU-LAC Summit, and I believe that it will be of great help for the preparation and conduct of the summit meeting. Mr Salafranca said that the cooperation between the European Union and Latin American and Caribbean countries must move from words to actions. I could not agree more; however, I would add that this is actually happening. The EU-LAC summit meetings are not just events where eloquent statements are made and grand designs are announced but never materialise. These meetings are events where commitments are made that do actually come true.

In this connection I should like to mention several points. The report on bi-regional cooperation between the European Union and the Latin American and Caribbean countries, which the joint presidency presented at the previous, fourth summit meeting in Vienna, is proof of the substantial progress which has been achieved so far in the actual implementation of the commitments made. I should also like to mention almost 400 bi-regional measures for the implementation of the commitments made in Guadalajara, as well as the new list that has been prepared concerning the implementation of commitments made at the Vienna Summit in 2006. We hope that the Lima Summit will achieve a further step towards the acceptance and implementation of commitments undertaken.

A number of Members of the European Parliament, amongst others Mr Schulz, Mr Meyer-Pleite, Mr Liese, Mr dos Santos and several others, regretfully I cannot mention them all, have mentioned the Cuban issue. I should like to say that the Lima Summit will not be the EU–Cuba Summit, neither will it be a summit on Cuba. However, as so many opinions have been voiced, I should like to make just a couple of important points.

For the time being the policy of the European Union, and that of the EU Council and the EU Presidency, towards Cuba is being regulated by the following documents: the common platform of the European Union for 2006, and the General Affairs and External Relations Council’s conclusions last year. The two documents represent the basic guidelines for all the Member States and their attitude to Cuba, and also for their talks on Cuba with third countries. I should like to add that the core of the European Union’s policy toward Cuba is human rights.

The session of the General Affairs and External Relations Council in June will be another opportunity to discuss Cuba. I should like to say that the Slovenian Presidency is making efforts for a new common platform to be adopted at this session. We hope that our efforts will be successful. However, as I mentioned earlier, this will not be a subject of discussion at the Lima Summit in May, which will be a meeting between the EU and the Latin American and Caribbean countries as a whole.

In conclusion, I should like to say that it is the wish of the Slovenian Presidency that the summit meeting provide a further impetus, or to paraphrase Mr dos Santos, would generate new dynamism in the relationship between the European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean, and I am convinced that with debates such as this one the European Parliament can contribute to the achievement of this aim.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, Mr Salafranca, I can say that the Commission has put every possible effort into making this Summit a real success. As Mr Schulz has pointed out, and the Minister has just said, Lima really has to be an opportunity to give a strong impetus to relations between Latin America and Europe.

As many of you, including Mr Schulz, have stressed, we have many shared values. There is joint support for multilateralism and there is an undoubted need for close cooperation between the European Union and the Latin American countries if we want our influence to be felt in an improved global organisation. If we want reforms in the major international institutions, we shall only achieve that through a fairly far-reaching agreement between Latin America and the European Union. There is no other region in the world with which we are working as closely as Latin America at a multilateral level.

Mr President, I should now like to reply briefly to a few questions. The first relates to the hostages. Obviously the Commission has systematically supported all efforts to reach a humanitarian agreement on the release of all hostages. The Commission is, of course, very sensitive to the speeches that have raised this problem.

I should like to say a word about Cuba. Certainly, as the Minister has said, Cuba will not be the central issue at this Lima meeting, but all the same I want to say that the policy of the European Union is one of constructive engagement. We are not in favour of a policy of isolation or sanctions. Our Commissioner, Louis Michel, was in Cuba recently. We are prepared to cooperate with Cuba on areas of common interest, but obviously our dialogue with Cuba includes the human rights issue.

We also want to make progress on the association agreements. We intend to make progress with Mercosur. We also want to reach a conclusion in 2009 with the Andean Community.

I am going to talk about a few points that have been raised in this very interesting debate. The point raised by Madame Belohorská, access to water, is very important and the issue has been included in the draft statement for the Lima Summit. The Commission is backing water access projects and programmes in several countries.

Participation by civil society has also been mentioned. Civil society will be organising two events in preparation for the Lima Summit: the organised civil society conference, ESOSOC, and the conference of NGOs, non-organised societies. The Commission has provided financial backing for those conferences and a report will be presented on them at the Lima Summit.

The question of food prices has been raised and it is true that the rise in food prices will certainly affect Latin America, where over a third of the population is already living in poverty. In some countries, such as El Salvador, people are heavily dependent on food. The increased food prices will obviously have a profound effect on a population that is already very vulnerable. This issue is of course linked to the strategy on biofuels. That is a delicate issue, which it will certainly be worth discussing.

The position of women in Latin America has been mentioned. The Commission is extremely worried about the situation in Latin America, especially in Mexico and Guatemala. We are fully aware of the position and are trying to combat the problem. We are grateful to the European Parliament for its work on the subject.

My replies are not comprehensive, but the debate has been very useful and it will certainly add clarification to the Lima Summit. The Summit will enable us to step up the dialogue with the region and coordinate our efforts better on important international deadlines, especially for the environment. It is also an opportunity for us to see how we can support democratic responses to the structural problems inherent in social cohesion. Certainly the European institutions need to coordinate their efforts to differentiate their approach, to adapt it to the problems of each of the states in the region.

Finally, I should like to welcome the work of EuroLat. EuroLat, the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly, was set up after the 2006 Vienna Summit. It has already made a valuable contribution to cooperation with the region, whilst strengthening the democratic will on both sides. In that connection, we are sure that, with the special links it has with the region through EuroLat, the European Parliament will act decisively in ensuring that the association between the European Union and the countries in the region plays an increasingly important strategic role.

Once again I should like to thank all the Members who have spoken and provided clarification in preparation for the Lima Summit.

  President. − To conclude the debate I have received six motions for a resolution pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 24 April 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE), in writing. – (HU) It is no accident that the Latin American rain forests are called the lungs of the world. Our climate and with it our future depends on how well we retain the original extent of these life-giving rain forests in Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, Venezuela and other South American countries, along with their biodiversity and richness of fauna and flora. It is therefore important that environmental protection and a proper climate policy are given heightened emphasis in our cooperation between the European Union and the Latin American countries. The voracious greed for profit, the clearing of the rain forests and the planting of crops for biofuels are contrary to the fundamental interests of humanity. We must therefore motivate our Latin American friends to call an end to these destructive actions. The best way to protect these original natural assets, if we are not to upset the indigenous communities, is to leave the people in ownership of their land and leave them to continue their own way of life. An essential of our development and support policy must be to mutually uphold the requirements for environmental protection.

3. Negotiations between the European Union and the United States with regard to visa exemptions (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Council and Commission statements on negotiations between the European Union and the United States with regard to visa exemptions.

  Dragutin Mate, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) I should like to briefly inform you of the progress of the visa waiver talks and the talks on ESTA. To begin with, I should like to say that, for the European Union, visa policy is an extremely important issue and that, ever since new Member States joined the European Union, both the Commission and all the presidencies have made huge efforts so that all countries and citizens would have to meet the same conditions for entry into the United States of America, and so that each of them would be included in the visa waiver programme. The abolition of visas would, of course, mean that all the citizens of the European Union are equal.

This year the USA have started with certain procedures, and have opened their doors for the visa waiver programme. They began with exclusively bilateral talks, and this is where some misapprehensions were encountered. Some intensive discussions were held which we, the Presidency, in conjunction with the Commission, clarified at the beginning of this year, and following a number of meetings a twin-track cooperation system in this area was agreed. This approach was also confirmed at the Trio's EU–USA meeting held in Slovenia on 12 March.

A twin-track system means that the Commission is to be given a mandate to negotiate and to reach an agreement with the United States of America in connection with matters concerning the European Union, and at the same time all the countries can hold talks at a bilateral level concerning matters which fall within the competency of the Member States. On 18 April, at its latest session, the Justice and Internal Affairs Council also voted in favour of granting the Commission a mandate, so that now the Commission too can begin with such talks. We hope that this twin-track cooperation will be transparent. Some Member States have already commenced with preliminary bilateral talks as to how the agreements should look, although so far nothing has been put in writing. We expect that both the Member States and the Commission will be transparent, so that we can then act at that level.

In touching upon the subject of electronic travel authorisation, I must mention that we have had several discussions in this respect. Jointly with the Commission and the American side we have held so-called exploratory talks. From the data which have so far been available, it is evident that at present the United States of America will not be requesting any additional information apart from the data which passengers already voluntarily provide on flights to the United States of America when filling in the I-94 form, which is green for those who have a visa system. This is extremely important.

In the current talks we have also established, and it has been agreed, that such controls will be free of charge and, once issued, the authorisation would be valid for two years. In fact, once this system is in place the citizens would send their details via the Internet to the United States authorities, which would then process them in the same way in the future as they do now.

There is also another topic which deserves particular mention, namely the talks with the United States of America in connection with a high level team of experts as regards the protection of personal data. So far we have managed to agree on twelve principles and we have established that they are identical. One principle is still open. I hope that by the end of June we shall reach a point where we shall conclude that it is possible to continue the discussions and to provide the team with a different mandate, in order to commence preparations for talks on the possibility of reaching a framework agreement with the United States of America in this area.

Why do we need this framework agreement? Firstly, we wish to keep in line with the resolutions that the European Parliament adopted in December last year, whereby it was particularly expressed that such an agreement would be desirable. Of course, we believe that the opportunity to have negotiations and the opportunity of reaching agreement under such an umbrella agreement are possible only if in line with the principles and once the Lisbon Treaty has been adopted, which means jointly with Parliament, with the Council and with the Commission. Only a consensus between all three bodies will enable us to achieve common principles and the common principles of action. At the same time, of course, once we have such an umbrella agreement, we shall continue individually to decide on any exchange of information on a case-by-case basis. This agreement will not be able to cover everything that follows. That is to say, the current situation is such that, for every agreement, these principles are repeatedly raised and repeatedly negotiated at all negotiations. If we had such common principles providing us with a basis, the concrete agreements and treaties would, of course, be in a much better position. Mr President, this is all I briefly wanted to say.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union-United States 'justice, freedom and security' ministerial Troika, in which Mr Mate and Vice-President Frattini took part in March, was an excellent opportunity to discuss certain important issues with our American counterparts.

We have taken a step in the right direction by adopting the ministerial declaration on the approach to be adopted for the introduction of new American legislation on visa exemption. Under that legislation, security agreements have to be signed with countries that are or will be members of the Visa Waiver Programme. The United States has noted the two-prong approach required in the case of the European Union, in which competences in that area are divided between the Community and the Member States. Matters of national competence will be discussed with the national authorities; matters that are a Union responsibility will be discussed with the European authorities. The American negotiators have also endorsed the joint objective of secure travel between the European Union and the United States, without a visa, as soon as possible.

To achieve that objective, the Commission has proposed a mandate for the Council that would allow it to open negotiations with the United States. I am grateful to Mr Mate, who chaired the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 18 April, because thanks to a very wide consensus the Council was prepared to assign that mandate to the Commission. That is proof of our joint intention to work and proceed in a unified fashion, which is obviously more efficient.

The Commission will now be opening negotiations as soon as possible. We have already been in touch with the American authorities. We need to make rapid progress with the United States on the conditions for the Visa Waiver Programme, which is a Community competence. At the same time we have to safeguard the rights and freedoms of our citizens, to ensure access for Member States as quickly as possible. We intend to take particular care that any agreement between the Community and the United States is based on the principle of reciprocity, on respect for fundamental rights and individual freedoms, including data protection and the right to a private life.

As Mr Mate has just said, we shall also be discussing the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation in the negotiations. Under the Visa Waiver Programme, passengers travelling to the United States by air or sea will have to answer certain questions online before departure. They will then be issued with an electronic travel authorisation. I should point out that the system is already operating between the European Union and Australia. The United States has several times supplied us with information on the arrangements for operating the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA), notably at our video-conference with Mr Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Obviously further clarification is required and Mr Mate and I will discuss these matters again with Mr Chertoff when he comes to Brussels in mid-May. We have to maintain solidarity between the Member States on this whole issue. The two-prong, double track approach will only work efficiently if the states are totally transparent in their negotiations with the United States. The United States should shortly be submitting the arrangements for implementation of the memoranda of understanding with Member States that have signed them, because these implementing agreements are clearly essential and it will be our responsibility to evaluate them.

Finally, in close association with the Presidency, the Commission will be pursuing its longstanding dialogue with the United States. Relations between the European Union and the United States in that area require a confident and essential partnership. The security of our citizens calls for joint action that safeguards fundamental rights. In my view, adopting the negotiating mandate is the best possible compromise. It allows the Member States discretion to negotiate with the United States on matters that are their prerogative, such as cooperation and exchanges of information between intelligence services, but it is of course up to us to ensure that travel to the United States is possible for all citizens of the Union. The extension of the Visa Waiver Programme has been criticised in the United States Congress, but I think that, with support from the European Parliament and the Minister, we shall be able to uphold the position of the European Union, which wants to stand firm on equal treatment for all its citizens.

That is what I can tell Parliament this morning. I shall now listen carefully to your speeches, which will provide clarification for the forthcoming negotiations.

  Urszula Gacek, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, I warmly welcome the initiative taken by the Council and by the Commission, whereby clear and transparent framework principles will be established concerning bilateral agreements on visa-free travel between Member States of the Union and the United States.

At the start of this year, certain impatient Member Sates began negotiating with the United States independently, without the Union’s agreement. Other countries chose to wait for principles to be regulated within the framework of the Union, as they understood that they would be in a stronger position if they could count on the backing of the entire European Union. A strong message has been sent to the United States today, making it clear that pressure must not be put on individual Member States to infringe Community principles. This also applies to sensitive issues outside the remit of Union arrangements, such as the publication of data on passenger movements. What is significant is that it is now possible for individual Member States to negotiate separately with the United States. These are the very countries that are most motivated to secure visa-free travel for their citizens. These countries must, however, keep in mind the position worked out together and based on the principle of reciprocity, and also the requirement to keep the Commission informed of the progress of negotiations.

Essentially, the ball is now in the United States’ court. I call on the United States to carefully consider the criteria on the basis of which visas are granted to citizens from the eastern part of the European Union. Is it really the case that a large proportion of the latter are potential illegal immigrants who will not leave the United States upon expiry of their visa? That is actually the reason why the vast majority of visa applications are refused, not the potential threat to security. After all, Eastern Europe is hardly a spawning ground for fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups. In the past, citizens of Eastern Europe were tempted to reside in the United States illegally for financial reasons. The situation has now changed dramatically. Eastern Europeans have been able to work legally in the old Europe from the time of accession to the Union. They can work there without breaking the law and without fear of the immigration services.

In view of these changes, the United States’ negative attitude is increasingly difficult for those citizens to understand. The stance adopted by the United States is also detrimental to its image. That is why it is also in the interest of the United States to draw negotiations to a close quickly and ensure that the visa requirement for Union citizens is consigned to history.

  Claudio Fava, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to welcome the President of the Council and the Commissioner. As a Group we welcome the Council's approval of a negotiating mandate which will at last enable the Commission to negotiate the inclusion of all Member States - I repeat all Member States - in the new Visa Waiver Program as amended by the US Congress last year.

We wish at the same time to express our regret that the Washington Administration decided to launch bilateral negotiations with the countries having recently acceded to the European Union: that decision cannot be endorsed on grounds of either merit or method.

Our Group believes the United States to be an essential partner in the fight against terrorism, but at the same time we think that the US Administration must respect the political subjectivity and powers of the European Union, as enshrined in our Treaties. I would venture to suggest, Commissioner, that the same reminder be made to the EU Member States: they are the interpreters and custodians of this European subjectivity.

It is worth recalling, as you have done, that visa policy, like our policy on asylum and combating illegal immigration, is the responsibility of the European Community. Importantly, the Council has drawn red lines around the negotiating mandate, to the effect that no bilateral agreement may be negotiated between a Member State and the United States on matters falling under EU competence, especially where such agreements allow the US authorities access to European Union databases.

We now call on the Commission to work towards an agreement, an overall solution, granting a visa exemption for citizens of all European countries on the basis of equal dignity and above all reciprocity.

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, this mandate is very welcome and we shall await the results. I am also wondering why this was not achieved in previous years and why it is achievable now. Let us hope that it can be achieved.

I also welcome the statement by Mr Mate that exemption from the visa requirement must apply to all citizens of the European Union and not all Member States, and that is quite a difference. In that connection, I should also like to draw attention to the ban on entry into the United States by people with HIV. I hope you will take a firm stand on the removal of that entry ban. I should also like to ask your opinion of the statements by Mr Chertoff in the Washington Post this week that exemption from the visa requirement will be conditional upon fingerprinting by airlines. That is a completely new factor and I should like to know your opinion of it.

Then we come to the PNR. If the American PNR requirements go further than is now set out in the EU-US agreement, which in any case has not yet been ratified, does that mean that the agreement immediately lapses? On that point, we need to know what is in the implementing agreements and I really wonder why we have no information on that so far. I find that a strange situation.

Then we come to the Electronic System of Travel Authorisation and the protection of personal data. I am really not entirely reassured that that has been properly organised. The 12 principles we have seen in the meantime are of course good. However, just as with the rules in the third pillar, the framework decision for the European Union itself, the problem lies not in the principles, but in the long list of exceptions to them. On that point I want guarantees, not just principles. I also want to know how that will work in practice before we agree just to hand over the data on everyone to other countries.

Then there is the question of democratic legitimacy. How are you going to ensure democratic scrutiny? I find the proposal of a committee of experts neither democratic nor transparent. To my mind, this is a typical case for parliamentary scrutiny.

Finally, I hope that the Commission and the Council have learned their lesson, that we as a European Union are far stronger if we are united and not divided, and if, furthermore, we arrange matters of this kind openly with the parliamentary support of the European Parliament.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, I should like to thank the Commission very much for all its efforts to ensure equal treatment for all European Union citizens at the US border. I believe, however, that the negotiations concerning lifting the requirement for US visas provide a clear indication of the European Union’s limitations.

Despite full support for the European Commission, notably on the part of the countries that acceded to the Union in 2004 and 2007, the talks have collapsed. The United States is to sign bilateral visa agreements with each Member State in turn, once the country concerned complies only and exclusively with the criteria of US legislation in that regard. Evidently, it is easy for the Commission to restrict the competences of the Member States. Sometimes this is achieved by way of treaties, and at other times by precedent. It is much harder to achieve success in relations with third countries. Despite such significant support for the Commission’s right to exclusive representation, certain Member States opted for individual negotiations. My country is not one of them, but I have to say that I am not at all surprised that they acted as they did.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, representatives of the Commission and the Council, you have neither said enough to us nor have you convinced for the European Parliament. The USA’s choice to sign separate agreements on an issue of Community jurisdiction is an insult to the EU and should be described as such. The decision by the Czech Republic to sign such an agreement is an infringement of Community jurisdiction. Nobody has the right to give personal data on European citizens to the Americans, or to anyone else, without verification by the EU and the European Parliament. This goes beyond the contents of the PNR.

Members of the Council, I ask you therefore to note that not merely the new Member States are involved. Although Greece was one of the first 15 Member States of the EU, Greek citizens still need a visa to travel to the USA. We must stop this, but by means of a single approach not infringing the personal data protection of citizens. Please include this in your final position.

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in Parliament I represent citizens of the Czech Republic, who were just mentioned. The Czech Republic initiated the bilateral negotiations by some Member States on US visas. I strongly resent the European Commission’s unjustified criticism of my country’s foreign policy. The Commission has arrogantly overstepped its factual competences and suppressed the principle of subsidiarity and equality of the members of the Union. Let me also remind you that the bilateral visa negotiations were simply the Czech Republic’s reaction to the Commission’s complete lack of results in the matter of visa exemptions for the new Member States. Ladies and gentlemen, the Commission should realise that although it is an executive body of a high standing, there are many areas where it has to respect the political will of Parliament and the individual Member States.

Finally, if the European Commission wishes to be an arbiter of the Union’s airline safety in the context of US visas, it should not reprimand those countries that are making efforts, through information exchange, to spoil the terrorists’ intentions. On the contrary, it should criticise those countries that negotiate, without scruples, with representatives of Libya or Hamas among others.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Minister Mate, Vice-President Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, on 10 March I expressed in this House my fears on this issue. I felt then and I still feel that the United States has opted for a divide and conquer strategy by proposing bilateral agreements within its Visa Waiver Program. Unfortunately, various Member States have been unable to resist the temptation of trying to make quicker progress, forgetting that the common visa policy is undoubtedly an area of Community competence, just as they are obliged to respect the principle of solidarity enshrined in the Treaty.

When these Member States joined the European Union, they undertook to respect the entire Community acquis, having agreed to share their sovereignty on common issues where a European approach should prevail. The signature of these bilateral agreements has therefore set a precedent which is totally contrary to the spirit on which European integration is based.

I congratulate the Council on the negotiating mandate given to the Commission on 18 April. We must prevent this process from weakening the European negotiating position. In March I argued that it would have been better to opt for a freeze on bilateral agreements until the conclusion of the negotiations between the Commission and the United States. I call on the Commission and Commissioner Barrot not to compromise on such an issue of common interest. I call on them to keep a close watch on the initiatives of each Member State, not to hesitate in resorting to the Court of Justice of the European Communities if Community law is breached and, in particular, to keep this Parliament informed of developments in this situation and the level of solidarity, or lack thereof, demonstrated by the various Member States.

  Martine Roure (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in Office of the Council, we welcome the fact that the Council has finally given the European Commission a mandate to negotiate with the United States on the inclusion in the Visa Waiver Programme of the 12 countries that were currently excluded.

It is also a good sign that, in parallel to these negotiations, negotiations are being opened on the Electronic System of Travel Authorisation and the exchange of data. However, will this mandate really make it possible to call a halt to bilateral negotiations, in favour of a truly European approach? Let us hope so.

I would remind you again that no bilateral negotiations are acceptable on visa exemption and any negotiation of exchanges of data with the United States, such as PNR, and that only agreements at European Union level can be considered.

Does this negotiating mandate also provide for a general agreement on personal data protection? That is what I want to ask, because the American legislation still excludes Europeans and does not protect them. Finally, I should like to point out that the SIS and VIS were set up for specific purposes and that opening up access to the data in those systems to third countries would breach the principles of purpose and proportionality. We are thus relying on you.

  Gérard Deprez (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have a few brief observations.

First of all, I welcome the efforts by the Commission President and the Member States leading to the approval of a proper negotiating mandate on 18 April. This issue had been dealt with in a disorganised manner and, I would say, disastrously managed recently, and this is good news for all citizens of Europe.

However, I should like to mention two points that the Commissioner has already raised. Mr President, Commissioner, it is not right that the implementing agreements negotiated between certain Member States and the United States should at the moment be completely non-transparent. That might not be surprising for the United States, but it is unacceptable for the Member States. I am addressing my remarks particularly to the Czech Republic, which will shortly be taking over the Presidency of the Union and should be setting an example. Although the negotiating mandate lays down very clear rules on data protection, I still believe that, on this sensitive issue, only a truly transatlantic agreement, and not just the setting of 12 principles, a truly transatlantic agreement, ideally, in my view, overseen by a joint data protection authority, can meet the requirements of both parties, and ours in particular.

  Guntars Krasts (UEN). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the European Commission for representing the interests of the new Member States in the talks with the United States on the introduction of a visa waiver programme. The Commission has consistently kept this issue on its agenda. Following the talks between the European Union and the United States in March we can conclude with satisfaction that there has been success in defusing possible conflict situations with individual Member States beginning bilateral talks with the United States on the introduction of visa waiver programmes. As we know, the United States maintained the position that it would remove visa systems only in bilateral talks with each individual Member State. Therefore, we should welcome the results of the March summit between the European Union and the United States, in which agreement was reached on the twin-track approach. In the current situation this should be regarded as an ideal solution, which defuses potential conflicting policies. The Member States that are currently in the process of talks with the United States concerning the introduction of visa waiver programmes have a great deal of interest in the agreement reached with the United States in the March summit concerning the successful implementation, by June this year, of the electronic travel authorisation system and the coordination of its introduction with the planned EU system. For these Member States, any delay would mean dragging out the introduction of visa waiver programmes with the United States. Thank you.

  Vladimír Remek (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, my voters in the Czech Republic also wonder whether the amount of personal data and information required by the US for the proclaimed fight against terrorism in order to grant a visa is acceptable. At the same time I would like to remind you that the European Union has not been sufficiently active in advocating the rightful interests of its new Member States regarding US visa exemptions. The fear of complicating visa relations for the old Member States of the Union simply played into the hands of Czech officials looking after their own interests.

What is more, although the government in Prague denies this, it is a rather striking coincidence that the US are willing to waive visas for our citizens just when it is trying to get the Czechs’ approval to station the anti-missile radar base in the country. Although it is clear that this is a pure coincidence and that the goodwill of the Czech Government is rewarded with reciprocal gestures from the US, suspicion of political trading in the country’s sovereignty logically follows.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, this whole debate about visa exemptions between the United States and the European Union is gradually starting to seem like a hallucination. A number of new Member States have managed to sign bilateral agreements with the United States. For them it was quicker and obviously easier than waiting for a general agreement with the European Union as a whole. America is attaching a number of conditions to visa exemption as part of the fight against terrorism. Where is the problem?

The Eurofederalists say that signing visa agreements is a European competence. In the previous debate on that subject, a member of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats said that what is called European solidarity must take precedence and that that just has to be explained to the people of the Member States concerned who are the victims. Ideology apparently has to take precedence over practicality. It is the responsibility of the Member States and it must remain the responsibility of the Member States to decide for themselves who enters their territory and under what conditions, and the visa policy is an essential part of that.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE-DE). – (MT) Thank you, Mr President. The removal of the travel visa to the United States is a very important priority for our citizens and we are mistaken if we think that it is not. It is an important priority, as travelling without a visa is easier and also cheaper – for all travellers. It is also important because we can no longer maintain the unjust situation where half of the countries of the European Union do not require a visa to travel to the United States while the other half do. You have to be in the position of needing a visa to go to the United States to appreciate just how important its removal is. Thus, every effort, from whatever direction, to remove visas is good, positive and to be supported, not criticised. What is important is not who manages to remove the visa for the 12 countries that still require it. What is important is that it is removed. Thus the childish games between the Commission and the Member States over who has competence to negotiate with the United States should end. Aside from legalese there is one reality – the reality that the United States has old and strong bilateral ties with the Member States and it is obvious that discussions will be held with them directly. On the other hand it is clear that the Commission has a role – yes, it has a role to continue to increase pressure in the right direction. At the same time, however, we all know that the United States has so far preferred to speak to individual countries, and in fact the Commission has not yet managed on its own. Thus, it is important that we do not keep arguing about who has the right to negotiate, because that way we will lose and be divided instead of being strengthened. That is why I am in favour of a twin-track approach; what is important is that we support one another so that the visa is removed, removed without delay and removed for all EU citizens.

  Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you have presented us with the infamous Twin-Track Visa Waiver Program. According to it, the USA is to make visa exemption a privilege and will ratify the special requirements to be imposed on Greece and the new Member States, which will have to provide, with a European stamp of approval, of course, even more sensitive passenger data than universally required in theory by the PNR. There will even be immediate access to citizens’ criminal records. Your answer is that this is not a matter of Community competence and that each Member State should act as it wishes. In other words, you are leaving half the Member States exposed to brutal threats for the surrender of personal data, which the USA does not require from the other half of Member States. In any case, this has been said more plausibly but also more cynically by Mr Rosenzweig, the US Assistant Secretary involved. He said in the US Senate on 28 February:

‘The eight aspirant countries [...] have strong incentives to commit to implementing the full suite of security standards’.

In other words, these are countries are so desperate for visas that we can force them to accept anything.

Commissioner, according to the letter and spirit of Europe’s Common Visa Policy, however, the current visa or non-visa status does not merely have to be given to everyone; all citizens have a right to it under the same terms. The USA has been politically strong enough to remove the Common European Policy. Unfortunately, at the Council and the Commission you have not had the political will to stop them.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, when it comes to the Visa Waiver Programme, the statements are quite honestly not reassuring and a few enquiries had already confirmed that assumption. Earlier versions of the Commission mandate have been further cut down. In short, a poor result. In any event six Member States, and possibly now Malta as well, have signed memoranda of understanding with the Americans. The implementing provisions are not yet known and so the lines of the national policy are not at all clear.

I have the following question about this, together with the meagre mandate for the Commission: why do Member States really belong to the European Union? Is there still such a thing as Community spirit? We can only stand up to the Americans if the 27 Member States act in the same way. We, as a Union, need to send a strong signal to the other side of the Atlantic. We must have the courage to take advantage of our strong negotiating position. With all due respect, I find the behaviour of some Member States on this point unacceptable. The argument that the Commission has made too little progress in the last few years for the Member States concerned sounds all very well, but it is disproportionate when it comes to the behaviour that has been demonstrated. It is high time to act for ourselves and not just to leave it to the United States. This way, the EU is frankly making itself completely ridiculous.

  Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I should like to express my thanks to the European Commission and in particular to Commissioner Frattini who unfortunately cannot be with us today. Commissioner Frattini made it abundantly clear in the course of negotiations that visa issues are the competence of Brussels and that those countries negotiating with the United States are breaking the Union’s solidarity.

To date, 14 of the richest Member States of the Union together with Slovenia have availed themselves of this privilege, but all Member States of the Union are hoping to do likewise, notably those located in the part of Europe I hail from. Unanimity is a sine qua non for the final settlement of visa issues to the advantage of all Member States of the European Union. The best approach seems to be joint action through a single representative, namely Commissioner Frattini. The latter has demonstrated his willingness to fight for equal treatment for all Union citizens. This approach also shows that the Union is capable of speaking with a single voice. It is nonetheless unfortunate that certain countries have been prepared to take independent decisions on this matter and to sign individual visa memoranda with the United States.

  Ioannis Varvitsiotis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, the signing of an agreement with the USA and a single country over the Visa Waver Program (VWP) will prove to be fraught with danger. It will allow the US to access the EU’s databases containing travellers’ personal details, taxation data and even criminal records. Member States ought to be particularly careful here, because matters of Community jurisdiction are affected, such as the Schengen Treaty and the Common European Visa Policy. This is why I totally oppose the Czech Republic’s initiative to sign a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the US.

Other countries have followed the example of the Czech Republic: Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) have already been signed by Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia and Malta. I find the explanations and statements of the Commissioner unsatisfactory: he failed to answer what would happen if there are points conflicting with European positions in the agreements the above countries have already signed.

My country, Greece, is one of the EU’s 15 original members. Although it is nonetheless lumbered with the visa procedure, it did not follow suit. For if we really believe, Commissioner, that in the EU each Member State can do what it believes serves its interests, there is no union.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – (HU) Mr President, on behalf of Hungary and the other new Member States I have to object to the criticisms and accusations that have been heard here. The older Member States of the European Union leave the new Member States to themselves. European solidarity is not working – either towards the new Member States or towards Greece. That is why all these critical remarks are beyond comprehension. There is one particular area where solidarity within the European Union has not been working and is not working, and it is extremely important that this matter could perhaps be settled once and for all. We need to be able to clarify what Member State competence is and what Community competence is, when negotiating visa-free regimes. We hope that this year Hungary and all the other new Member States will finally enjoy the same rights, such as travel without a visa to the United States, as the old Member States do. This current debate shows that solidarity within the European Union is not working. Thank you for your attention.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE). – Mr President, for me it is obvious that the EU still has no say in the negotiations with the US. The twin-track approach is just proof of the Council and Commission’s failure to protect European interests and citizens.

The fact that Member States are left alone to negotiate bilaterally with the US undermines our credibility and strength on the international scene and it might be to the detriment of our citizens whose data might be exchanged without any democratic scrutiny.

I believe that Member States should act in a European framework and I want the Commission to show determination and make our US partner understand that equal rights and equal treatment are not negotiable.

The ETAS that will be put in place could be a positive evolution as entry applications would be evaluated on the basis of each individual and not according to the country of origin. This would be a first step for equal treatment.

No matter the nationality, we have to make Europe without internal borders a reality and ensure equal treatment for all Europeans.

  Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, the most important issue we currently have to deal with involves reaching an agreement on visas with the United States whereby all Member States of the Union will be treated equally. This is an absolutely fundamental issue. Poland is relying on common European policy where this matter is concerned. I believe that the solidarity between all European countries represented by the European Commission is absolutely fundamental in this case. Let us hope that such an approach will mean that a new visa regime allowing entry to the United States for all citizens of the European Union on the same conditions will finally be agreed at the summit on 12 June.

I should like to make one further point. In developing policy linked to the visa regime, the European Commission must ensure that the basic principles of European rights are respected, so that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is not infringed regarding the personal information related to the visa regime.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the main topic of today’s debate is equality, equal conditions and equal treatment. As far as visas for travel to the United States are concerned, almost 20 years after the fall of communism and four years after the new Member States from Central and Eastern Europe have joined the EU, inequality still exists. These new Member States, together with Greece, still need visas to travel to the United States. Although I think that this is a shame, I also think that it is the United States that should be ashamed, not the European Union. After all, here we have a democratic country treating Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and other countries like this and at the same time calling them its closest allies.

As far as the negotiating and negotiation methods are concerned, I fully agree with my colleagues that the European Union must speak with one voice. This is the only way to achieve equality, both equality among the Member States of the European Union and mutual equality between the European Union and the United States, including in such areas as data exchange, personal data protection, etc.

  Jan Zahradil (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, I am glad that what we have always been saying here has proved to be true: no one has infringed obligations arising from their agreements, EU legislation or the competences of the Union, and bilateral negotiations can take place alongside multilateral or pan-European negotiations. Ladies and gentlemen, I resent that my country, the Czech Republic, is accused of a lack of solidarity and transparency. This is entirely untrue. We fulfil the obligations arising from our agreements, Community legislation and the principle of subsidiarity, accurately and exactly as necessary; no more, no less. I would also like to ask some of my fellow Members not to lecture about Europeanism. We are all equal Europeans: there are no greater or lesser Europeans.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, it is indeed the case that visa policy is part of common European policy and it is my earnest desire that the Commission will prove itself to be effective in the framework of the negotiating mandate granted to it. Let us hope that it will come up with a good agreement, as that would represent a joint success.

To date, however, we have allowed ourselves to be easily divided on this issue. The United States has divided European Union citizens into two groups. One may be termed the superior group, and those individuals are allowed to enter US territory without any difficulty. The other group is deemed inferior, and these people have to go through what are often humiliating procedures in order to enter the country.

I should like to register my strong protest against this state of affairs, and also mention a situation that is gaining notoriety in the United States. The visa issue is a factor in the US electoral campaign. It is not right for one of the candidates to promise, for instance, lifting the visa requirement for my fellow citizens, namely Poles, thus targeting the huge Polish diaspora. We should prevent this from happening.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, I want to know if the Commission and the Council will give an assurance that the EU will not, as part of the negotiations, allow access to EU databases like the Schengen Information System and the Visa Information System (VIS). As rapporteur on the VIS, I achieved a general ban on transfers to third countries from the VIS database, and I want to know if that is threatened in any way.

Secondly, do the Commission and Council accept that going down this blind alley of mass surveillance and collection of personal data on everybody – 99% of whom will be completely innocent – risks being a distraction from trying to catch the 0.1% who may be a terrorist danger or an organised crime suspect?

Today, a top anti-Mafia prosecutor in Italy is warning that Mafia crime is spreading its tentacles across Europe because it is being neglected for lack of proper cross-border cooperation and criminal justice systems not working together. Is that not our top priority? And it is not being done because it is a harder nut to crack.

  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE). – (RO) At present, the European Commission has increased power of negotiation following the mandate given by the Member States’ Ministers of Home Affairs last week.

Moreover, we come from a series of efficient meetings with American representatives, the latest of them being the European Union – United States Justice and Home Affairs Troika, on 13 March.

I believe we should insist as much as possible on the three principles adopted on this occasion, especially on the common objective of waving visas as soon as possible.

Although significant progress has been recorded, the refusal rates in some Member States continue to increase.

In Romania, the rate has reached 37%, almost 10 per cent more than last year, although in the meantime our country has become a member of the European Union.

Unfortunately, this evolution keeps us from the 10% objective provided by the Visa Waiver program.

At present, only a concerted action of all the Member States can solve this issue of reciprocity regarding visas between the European Union and the US.

We have to make sure that, by the next European – United States Summit, our position is uniform and categorical in relation to visa waivers for all European citizens, based on a well-established schedule.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (PSE). – Mr President, the intention of both the Council and the Commission in stressing their determination to negotiate with the US on the removal of visas on behalf of all European citizens, as well as the preparatory technical steps to be taken to that effect, are commendable. However, a gap has already appeared between the multilateral negotiations the EU is preparing to initiate, which is likely to take time, and the concrete results already obtained by some EU countries through bilateral negotiations with the US. After all, we are all aiming for the same result – the elimination of visas for travelling to the US. It is just that we are confronted with an option – either to wait for the multilateral negotiations between the EU and the US to take off and get it later, or to enter bilateral negotiations with the US and get it much sooner. To force the EU member countries to choose the less attractive option for the sake of a false solidarity, which is not respected by many EU member countries with regard to other, much important matters – like energy for instance – is at least morally wrong, all the more so since half of European citizens are already exempted from visa requirements through earlier bilateral negotations with the US.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE). – (RO) I believe there are special relations between the European Union and the United States. Most of the Member States are a part of NATO and participate jointly in maintaining security in Europe and other countries when necessary, without differences among them.

Nevertheless, there are differences when it comes to granting entry visas for the United States, which relies on criteria that are insufficiently clear and transparent at present. The main criterion, less than 10% refused visas, is a criterion depending exclusively on American citizens and not on citizens requesting visas.

The European institutions have not yet managed to complete negotiations in favour of European citizens. Thus, every Member State has to find independent methods for solving the situation.

The fact that these negotiations have intensified over the recent period and that they can be carried simultaneously by the European Union and the Member States is positive.

It is necessary for the negotiations to refer to the criteria for granting visas. Only clear and in particular, transparent criteria will provide the citizens with the required information before submitting the visa applications.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the decision to deny a visa obviously depends on US civil servants. Making the right of entry to the US conditional on the percentage of visa applications rejected amounts to reasoning as follows: let us do what we want, nothing depends on you, but we will use this process to subject you to humiliating treatment and procedures, and to force you to accept such a degrading system. This is simply unacceptable, and proves that no partnership exists and that to all intents and purposes we are in a position where we cannot influence anything.

I do hope, however, that the Community approach to this matter and recourse to other instruments derived from the relationship between the European Union and the United States will result in some method of resolving the problem.

  Monika Beňová (PSE). – (SK) We welcome the European Commission’s initiative and see it as a step towards making the citizens of all Member States of the European Union equal, including those who in spite of being part of the European Union for four years this May are still subject to strict US visa policy.

The Government of the Slovak Republic is among those conducting bilateral discussions with the United States, in the genuine belief that as a result of these discussions Washington will act more quickly and be more helpful.

I would thus be very happy if Slovakia’s bilateral negotiations were seen in European circles as a positive step: complementing the actions of the European institutions rather than replacing them. I would also like to stress that this is not about our governments feeling wronged: we want the fundamental principles of the Community to be respected, and equality of all citizens is one of them.

  Titus Corlăţean (PSE). – (RO) Romania is one of the European Union Member States whose citizens need a visa to enter the territory of the United States.

Contrary to the actions of other countries, until the present Romania has avoided initiating bilateral negotiations with the United States, although the partnership concluded with this country and the presence of Romanian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would have entitled it to invoke the finding of bilateral solutions for solving the issue of visas.

I support a common approach by the EU Member States and mandating the European Commission to rapidly identify a solution for waiving the visa requirement in the case of the United States for European Union citizens, including Romanians.

A real, consistent and effective effort of negotiation is necessary from the European Commission. Otherwise, eventually, on the background of the pressure placed by Romanian public opinion, which cannot be ignored, Romania will have to find a rapid solution with bilateral negotiations with the United States, just like other European Union Member States that have solved the problem of American visas without taking into consideration the common position of Brussels.

Finally, I regret Mr Frattini’s absence from the debate, since he would have had the obligation to fight for correct treatment and free movement of European citizens and Romanian citizens and not to promote discriminatory policies for Romanian citizens, Community citizens who live and work in Italy, most of them being correctly integrated into Italian society.

  Dragutin Mate, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) I shall attempt to provide answers to certain dilemmas and issues which you have particularly highlighted. First of all, I should like to say that it is extremely important that at the last Council held on 18 April a consensus was achieved, and that the Commission has been granted a mandate to commence with negotiations. This is extremely important, so that we can work in such a manner, as you yourself have repeatedly expressed here today, in the spirit and in order that all European citizens have equal rights and, of course, equal obligations.

If I should touch upon some specific points that have been mentioned here earlier, I would like to say that, at the outset of negotiations, as one of the Members of Parliament has already mentioned, we have not been able to accept a strategy which has in a way been forced upon Europe. I should say that, maybe under the initial pressure when this strategy was set up, we managed to resist it. We have concluded the agreements, we have found a way of resolving this, we have achieved a twin-track cooperation approach for the future and therefore, in a way, we have made it clear, both to the United States of America and to the EU Member States, how we can cooperate and where the limits are of what is and what is not acceptable.

I should particularly like to touch upon the issues concerning fingerprints and, of course, the dilemmas that some of you Members of the European Parliament have, primarily as citizens of the EU. It is imperative that we do not confuse the two systems, ESTA and PNR. The PNR system will remain unchanged, the same as it is now, the same as it has been adopted and approved, and this is not about fingerprints being taken at travel agents' or anywhere else. This matter is as it is, and it is neither a subject for discussion nor a subject of any changes. I believe this is extremely important indeed.

On the subject of data protection and concerning the activities of a high level team of experts, I have to say that ever since I have been heading the Council of Ministers and have been presiding the Council I have, in conjunction with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, acted extremely transparently. I have delivered two reports on this matter to the relevant committees, and today I have made a presentation about current affairs, also before Parliament.

I think that in this first stage we have acted in line with the principle that we find out where the difficulties are, where the common difficulties are, where the common principles are, if there are any, and where there are none. On this basis we shall then be able to proceed with further activities. Further activities and negotiations will begin in 2009, and it is extremely important, provided they begin at all, that we, Parliament, the Council and the Commission, have common ground. This is the only way we shall muster enough power to reach an agreement. I believe that your Parliament too has decided that this agreement is extremely important for us, so that we have a data protection umbrella and, each time we negotiate an agreement, we do not have to raise this again, and this is our objective. These were not some negotiations connected with the reaching of an agreement. Certain principles have been studied. On this basis we shall see, and we already know, that twelve principles are practically identical. Should the negotiations begin, the principle that is not identical will, of course, be the subject of negotiation as well. I hope that our negotiations will be successful.

I should also like to point out the matter concerning cooperation between the Member States, the Commission and the Presidency as regards the memoranda, the further talks and implementation programmes. It should be clearly stated that memoranda are not agreements. Memoranda of understanding are expressions of political will that a country would like to become a visa waiver country. They do not contain any elements that would give this document the status of an international agreement.

As regards further talks and implementation agreements and/or implementation rules, we have very intense relations with the Member States. Several days ago, for example, I had very open talks with Jan Langer of the Czech Republic, about these talks and how they are proceeding. At this point there are no written documents yet concerning talks and implementation rules which the United States of America would give any of the Member States.

In my opinion it is most important that the work of the Member States, as well as that of the Commission and the Presidency, remains transparent. Only in such a triangle, and of course also in some areas of cooperation with the European Parliament, can a suitable manner of addressing this issue be achieved. However, I think that we shall let the Commissioner, the Vice-President, provide answers to several issues that fall within the competence of the Commission.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, we need to remedy a situation that is unfair. It is not possible to have two categories of European citizens, one requiring a visa, the other being exempt. I think that is a deeply held belief that we all share.

Secondly, I personally believe in the power of unitary negotiations. Europe is much stronger when it speaks with a single voice, with all its members showing solidarity. As Mr Mate knows, I ventured to point out that, on another subject that, relatively speaking, is in fact not at all similar, the Open Skies question, it was because the Commission had the mandate at a particular time that we were able to achieve the first stage of the Open Skies.

Well, in the same way I believe in the power of unitary negotiations and I must say that, with Mr Mate, we shall really work hard and with great determination.

I should add that the Commission has, all the same, established reciprocal arrangements with a number of non-member countries in the past. Our arrangements have allowed us to achieve good results with Canada, Australia and other countries, so there is no reason why we should not be able to stop this discrimination.

I should explain that the Commission will already have representatives in Washington on Tuesday and Wednesday to start the negotiations formally. In other words, that proves our determination to implement this mandate to the full. That is what I am able to tell you on this first point.

I should now like to answer the questions raised by Mr Deprez in particular about the implementing agreements. As Mr Mate has just said, we do not yet have the implementing agreements, so it is very difficult to assess them. However, it will certainly be our responsibility then to assess them carefully in the light of the Community provisions. I would add that we are going to be transparent, with Parliament in particular, on our negotiations with the United States, but the Member States – I am not accusing anyone, any Member State – but all the Member States that hold bilateral talks also have to fulfil that duty of transparency. We need mutual trust if we are to be effective. I must stress that.

Obviously if the implementing agreements later bring to light things that are not acceptable from the point of view of Community law, we shall see what needs to be done, but we shall do something.

Thirdly, some of you have raised the question of data. I want to point out even so that the PNR exchange of data is governed by the 2007 agreement between the European Union and the United States. Those provisions are there, they bind us at the moment and there is no reason to have to suffer any intimidation from our American friends. That being so, I noted in passing the comments by Mr Deprez on the idea that ultimately, in a general transatlantic agreement, it would no doubt be useful perhaps for an independent authority to be set up to monitor the protection of the data.

Those are a few explanations, but I can really tell you that Parliament will of course be kept very much abreast of our negotiations, that our strength will come from a complete interinstitutional agreement that will show our American friends that the European Union fully intends now to demand fair treatment for all its citizens and will do so with unfailing determination.

(Applause)

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place during the May part-session in Strasbourg.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE), in writing. – I welcome the presidency statement about the equal treatment of all EU citizens. It is time to give a parliamentary mandate to the Commission to reach a comprehensive agreement on the EU-US visa waiver programme. The aim is to provide for safe visa-free travel for all EU citizens without exception as soon as possible. We also expect the Commission to provide the maximum transparency during the negotiations. At this point we cannot see any reason from the USA side to insist on presenting additional data. Also it is important that electronic means could be used by citizens to forward their visa applications and personal data.

Several colleagues have shown irritation about the moves taken by some Member States to speed up reaching visa-free agreements with the USA authorities through bilateral consultations. This is not splitting the EU. Let us not forget that practically all older Member States already enjoy visa-free entry whereas practically all new Member States lack this opportunity.

Memorandums of understanding signed by these states are to be seen as acts of political will on the way toward a visa-free regime; they are certainly not separatist agreements.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.25 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

4. Voting time

  President. − The next item is voting time.

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

4.1. Protocol to the EC-Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Stabilisation and Association Agreement (Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, A6-0078/2008) (vote)

4.2. Application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia) (codified version) (A6-0089/2008, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg) (vote)

4.3. Mediation in civil and commercial matters (A6-0150/2008, Arlene McCarthy) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Arlene McCarthy, rapporteur. − Mr President, there are no amendments to the common position. That is thanks to the excellent work between the Parliament, Council and Commission and the work particularly of my shadows, Mrs Wallis and Mr Gauzès of the PPE-DE Group, who took a very strong line with the Council and Commission.

I think it has been over a year since we agreed this proposal but it is the mediation experts and professionals in this sector whose response to the Parliament’s first ever online consultation convinced us of the merits of this law. I know that they will now welcome today’s vote in bringing these proposals into legislation.

Too often we see cases where a marriage or a relationship involving children goes wrong and constituents end up with years of court procedures and massive legal fees. One of my constituents with a Greek partner amassed legal bills and had to go through the court system for three years to get her children back. Mediation can therefore be a valuable tool for citizens to achieve access to justice and potentially reduce the cost of dispute resolution without the often acrimonious process of going to trial.

It has the added benefit of freeing up court time for cases that require a court judgment. This new law should assist people across Europe in getting quick, affordable access to justice. I therefore urge Members to support the second reading and open up new avenues of redress and remedies for citizens across the EU.

(Applause)

  President. − I would remind colleagues that in plenary the rapporteur is entitled to ask for the floor for two minutes, so could everyone please exercise the appropriate self-control. I believe however that Mr Rack has called for the floor on a point of order.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, normally, we would say that our machinery is not working, but in this particular case, it is the lifts which are not working. Very many of our colleagues are waiting to make their way down to the Chamber. That being the case, it would be sensible if, perhaps, we could consider bringing forward declarations such as these.

  President. − I guarantee that everything possible will be done to return the lifts to working order as soon as possible or to allow colleagues to vote in the lifts.

4.4. European satellite radionavigation programmes (EGNOS and Gallileo) (A6-0144/2008, Etelka Barsi-Pataky) (vote)

4.5. Extension of scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection (A6-0148/2008, Martine Roure) (vote)

4.6. The role of civil society in drugs policy in the European Union (A6-0073/2008, Giusto Catania) (vote)

4.7. Adjustment of the multiannual framework (A6-0157/2008, Reimer Böge) (vote)

4.8. Programming implementation of the 10th European Development Fund (A6-0042/2008, Marie-Arlette Carlotti) (vote)

4.9. 2007 progress report on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (A6-0059/2008, Erik Meijer) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Erik Meijer, rapporteur. − Mr President, the oral amendment by Mr Landsbergis obliges me to explain the complicated situation concerning a name.

‘FYROM’ has never been the name of any country but can only be an abbreviation of ‘former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’. In my previous report, adopted by the plenary meeting of this Parliament on 12 July 2007, it was decided not to introduce the use of this abbreviation as a name but only to use those five words.

The conclusion was to replace all other terms included in amendments by ‘former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’.

I propose to maintain this line. The oral amendment proposed by Mr Landsbergis is not in line with this decision. I expect that during 2008 an agreement with Greece will solve the different views on the names of this state and that then the term FYROM will be forgotten forever.

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, we are in a tricky situation with one of our neighbours when a normally existing republic on the European continent is officially called non-existent – only ‘the “former” Republic of M.’ – by decision of the UN.

Before Washington follows New York and demands that the Georgia in the Caucasus should be called the ‘former Soviet Republic of Georgia’, we could express our dissatisfaction with such practices and work to find a solution for ‘M.’. That is my interim proposal – not to replace the name of someone ‘former’, but to correct the situation with the text of our report by inserting an additional explanation: ‘the country under the name of FYROM’.

Please have a little sense of humour and support. We should help both Greece and ‘M.’.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

4.10. China's policy and its effects on Africa (A6-0080/2008, Ana Maria Gomes) (vote)

- Before the vote on Amendment 5:

  Ana Maria Gomes, rapporteur. − (PT) Mr President, I wish to propose an amendment to Article 5 which involves a minor alteration to the text. The current text reads:

‘calls on the EU to encourage the creation of an African Partnership Forum engaging all major donors and investors;’

(PT) and, following the amendment that I propose, it will read:

‘calls on the EU to ensure that the African Partnership Forum engages all major donors and investors, namely China;’.

(PT) This amendment stems from the fact that we have realised that the African Partnership Forum has just been created and this is therefore a minor alteration which reflects the current situation. It was communicated to all colleagues and shadow rapporteurs and I have not been informed of any objections.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

5. Formal sitting – Slovenia

  President. − Spoštovani gospod predsednik Republike Slovenije. It is a great pleasure to welcome the President of the Republic of Slovenia to the European Parliament here in Strasbourg today. Welcome, Mr President.

Slovenia joined the European Union on 1 May 2004 and currently holds the Council Presidency. Mr President, four months ago, you took office as President of Slovenia and we have met three times already during that period: for the first time, two days before you officially took office in Ljubljana, then on 8 January at the official launch of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, and finally in New York in February during the UN General Assembly's thematic debate on climate change.

Mr President, you are the third President of Slovenia since your country gained its independence. You can look back on a long and distinguished career as a Professor of International Law and, above all, as a diplomat, for you have dedicated much of your career to the service of the United Nations. For eight years, you were the Republic of Slovenia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Representative" \o "Permanent Representative"

to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations" \o "United Nations"

, and for five years, you were the UN http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assistant_Secretary-General_for_Political_Affairs&action=edit&redlink=1" \o "Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs (page does not exist)"

. Now, Slovenia has the great honour to be the first of the new Member States – the countries which joined the European Union on 1 May 2004 – and the first former communist country and the first Slavic country to hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

This privilege entails a great deal of responsibility for Slovenia, which you are facing up to, because the new Member States, in taking on this commitment, now also bear a responsibility towards the large family of the European Union. For Slovenia, the Council Presidency entails another responsibility as well, towards the countries in its neighbourhood, the countries of the Western Balkans.

Slovenia is a model for these countries, demonstrating to them that success is possible, that membership of the European Union can be achieved and that accession brings stability, development and prosperity.

Mr President, it is my great pleasure to invite you to address the House. Izvolite, prosim!

  Danilo Türk, President of the Republic of Slovenia. − (SL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour to have been invited to address this esteemed assembly. Just a month ago we celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the European Parliament's first session. The anniversary is an excellent opportunity to think about the present and the future of the European Union. Today I have this special opportunity of being able to share my thoughts with you - the elected representatives of the nations of Europe.

This Parliament and, of course, the European Union as a whole are an imposing realisation of a great vision, a vision of lasting peace and welfare, a spirit of cooperation and continually increasing integration, from which the European nations are benefiting. The fathers of this vision – Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi and others – probably could not even imagine that, 51 years after the formation of the European Communities, in a highly integrated European Union following its major expansion in the year 2004, Slovenia, as the first country among the new Member States, would be the presiding country and the Slovenian President would be addressing the European Parliament.

However, their feeling of satisfaction would probably overpower their feeling of amazement. Not only has the European project succeeded, but it has also proven to be a project that has a huge transformational power, that is creating a completely new type of Europe, a type of Europe that has, during the previous periods of its long history, been unknown. What is even more important today is that the European Union has, through the European project, to a large extent already affirmed itself as a world factor, as a world actor. And this is precisely what I would like to talk about today.

What has enabled this incredible success to be achieved, the creation of such a large and important world actor as this? What conclusions can we draw from this success today? Are we capable of applying the knowledge gained in the past when facing the challenges of today and tomorrow? These are the questions that we continuously have to ask. The European Union will continue to face complicated questions in the increasingly ‘globalised’ world, and it will have to provide credible answers. The European Union will continue to be a success story, provided it preserves its dynamism, proving that it is a political world actor with ever-increasing importance, and I would add – a political importance. Moving forward is a precondition for success. What is required from the European Union at today's level is that it assumes the role of a world leader.

In many a field its role has either already been established, or it is eagerly expected. Here I should like to mention two of them: global warming and human rights.

Last year the European Union placed environmental issues and particularly the issue of global warming at the centre of its policy-making. Without any doubt, this was a wise decision, because climate change and environmental degradation are evidently the most serious threat and the greatest challenge we are all facing. The European Commission has established special objectives, which make it possible for the European Union to play a leading role worldwide. The key target is to achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse emissions by the year 2020, in comparison to 1991. The achievement of this target has been set out as an independent commitment. The initiative for an even more ambitious target should be part of a general international agreement, which would include also other key actors. In this instance, under the proposal by the European Commission the European Union would even be prepared to achieve a 30% reduction over the same period. These objectives are so important and so ambitious that they really afford a transformational vision for undertaking measures against global warming, thus providing the necessary example and world leadership.

However, can these objectives be achieved, or will they again become yet another insurmountable obstacle? The answer to that is still not quite clear. A month ago the European Council welcomed a proposal by the European Commission – as a good basis for agreement. Consultations this year and next will show how much can actually be achieved before the conference in Copenhagen, scheduled for December 2009. I should particularly like to emphasise that by setting up a special Committee on Climate Change the European Parliament has already recognised the importance of this issue and will, in relation to this, have an extremely important task.

The task before us will probably be difficult. The disquiet that is beginning to be felt in the European media conveys a whole range of mixed messages. There are expressions of support but there are also sceptical voices warning of concerns being expressed by some European branches of industry, including the fact that, since the world economy is experiencing difficulties, competitiveness is becoming increasingly difficult too, and at the same time the environmental issues are becoming relatively less important.

Difficult moments such as this represent a real leadership challenge. It is evident that global warming has already reached the point where the international community is faced with a stark choice: either to continue the methods of growth and accept an eventual catastrophe, or to pluck up courage for a transformational approach which can adequately mitigate the consequences of global warming and prevent the worst. We shall not succeed by worshipping growth. Although not easy to achieve, this is essentially the order of the day. And I hope that this year we shall choose the road leading to transformation.

In making these efforts it will be necessary to considerably widen the frontline of its advocates. In any event there are already many of those who feel that a shift towards transformation is necessary. Non-governmental organisations, the media and other factors of civil society are being mobilised. Within the business community there are indications of a strong inclination towards the development of new technologies based on clean energy, and more and more people are prepared to change their habits as consumers.

Now the tendencies have to be linked into a purposeful movement. The time frame is known. The place is known. According to the Action Plan adopted last year in Bali, the negotiations are expected to be concluded next year with the adoption of a world agreement which, in 2012, will replace the Kyoto Protocol. Although the negotiations will be held in the United Nations, it is important that support is received from everywhere. The time and place will enable us to join our efforts, and that is when the European Union must take the lead.

Ladies and gentlemen, the environment is not the only issue where the European Union must take the leading international role. The Union must also play a more powerful role in worldwide efforts for human rights. That the European Union is supporting human rights is, of course, obvious. The European institutions are based on the principles of the rule of law and human rights, Europe is a domain of human rights.

Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all the Member States by the end of this year, the year when we celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, will also mean that for the first time in the Union's history the whole spectrum of civil, political, economic and social rights of the Union's citizens, as determined by the Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, will become legally binding.

From a global point of view the situation around the world is not encouraging. In many places around the world there are numerous examples of the systematic violation of human rights. This is partly due to the wanton pursuit of economic benefits regardless of the needs of the local population and the environment. The poor and the indigenous population, in particular, are frequently threatened by poverty and hunger and, in some cases, even to extinction. In armed conflicts in a number of locations in Africa and Asia cruelties representing crimes against humanity continually take place.

The European Union must act in such a way that it proposes economic models for sustainable growth, it must also act by making humanitarian and diplomatic efforts, but also by applying sanctions that will support the decisions handed down by the International Court of Justice. At this stage the European Union has to take a leading role, particularly because world action in the sphere of human rights is lagging behind.

The UN Human Rights Council is still fighting for correct working methods. Their efforts to establish a universal periodic human rights review system at world level are promising, but still not effective. Their activities against numerous and systematic violations of human rights are not sufficiently integrated. All of this can slowly be rectified, although not without an efficient leadership, not without an effective leading role of those UN Member States who really fight for human rights.

In reality this cannot happen without a stronger leading role on the part of the European Union, which represents the most important group of influential United Nations Member States. Some other traditional supporters of human rights have lately become less active and have not applied for membership in the UN Human Rights Council. Growing concerns due to terrorism and other security threats, including reactions to those threats which are sometimes insufficiently well thought out, have obviously reduced the level of sensitivity to human rights. The European Union must fill this gap.

The Union must also find new methods of cooperation with the UN Security Council. It was the activity of the Security Council in Darfur that helped establish the role of the International Court of Justice in its efforts to prosecute the perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes of our times. Almost exactly one year ago the International Court of Justice issued custody orders for some of these perpetrators. Efforts to bring them before the court must be continued, and cooperation with the Security Council will remain of critical importance.

However, even without the activities of the UN Security Council, the European Union must consider actions which would contribute to the International Court of Justice's efficiency. I would like to emphasise that it is precisely the international administration of justice that is the backbone of today's international activity for human rights, and it requires effective support.

The European Union should also support those emerging democracies around the world that are truly committed to human rights. They are interested in international activities, but at the same time they have to take into account their regional and other affiliations, and also that in all international activities connected with human rights these aspects are not neglected. However, these countries are the European Union's partners, and these partnerships have to be nurtured.

Ladies and gentlemen, in its different forms international activity for human rights can be effective if it rises from a solid foundation, from a principled respect for human rights at home. This includes the protection of the human rights of both migrants and asylum seekers, and a careful application of laws in those cases that include charges of terrorism. However, the construction of this foundation must be continued. The Lisbon Treaty includes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and an improved decision-making procedure that will, in connection with human rights, facilitate the adoption of courageous and creative solutions.

For the European Union the requirement for creativity is nothing new. European creative unrest, as German President Horst Köhler said in his speech to this Parliament two years ago, this creative unrest has helped Europe take on various social and political challenges in their commitment to freedom and truth, with an ability to make solidarity become reality and to create a better world for everyone. In no other area will creativity and creative unrest be as necessary as in the area of immigration management and the social inclusion of immigrants.

Europe is getting old and will no longer be able to play the role of a world leader without a successful demographic policy. These policies will inevitably include migration management. Europe needs newly arrived people, positive in spirit and capable of contributing their share to the creation of a better world for everyone. The political measures that can help the process of migrant integration obviously differ and must be put together in a correct way, depending on the circumstances of each host country receiving immigrants. At the same time some elements are more widely applicable, and in some instances the European Union can also learn something from non-European countries such as Canada.

Migration policies will require a number of coordinated objectives at the level of the European Union as a whole. The objective of the common European asylum system up to the year 2010 appears to be both ambitious and urgent. Also necessary is improved coordination between immigration policy and development aid policy. The European Union must strengthen its role in its high level dialogue with the United Nations regarding migration.

At the same time, creativity is required in connection with the integration of immigrants and their communities. Economic welfare and greater upward social mobility are the key to a successful migration policy. For example, the business activities conducted by the ethnic minorities provide jobs and contribute significantly to the economies of the host countries. On the other hand, governments can make their own contribution with adequate regulations and qualification programmes and by providing general support for free enterprise.

Integration must include efficient access to quality training, parallel with language courses and access to university. Education is a precondition for the immigrants' successful integration into the wider society.

And success must be made visible. Individuals of immigrant origin who have managed to succeed must be given the opportunity to appear on television and in other media and must be held up as examples of success. This will help the wider public to understand that diversity and social inclusion are compatible, and that non-discrimination and equal opportunity are among the most important political virtues. Nothing succeeds like success. And nothing shown on television is more impressive than the success of those who started from the social margins.

I have to some extent highlighted immigration and integration issues in more detail because of their importance for the future of Europe and also because they represent another area where European creativity will be tested. In the past, the European Union has managed to resolve the majority of social issues and, as a result, has become a world example of social justice and economic welfare. There is no reason why our generation could not find good solutions in the area of immigration and integration. By integrating people who are capable, professionally qualified and willing to contribute to its future and its welfare Europe can gain considerably.

Ladies and gentlemen, today we undoubtedly need management, vision, and we need creativity. At the same time the European Union must prove that it is capable of continuing to find pragmatic solutions to various challenges. We must not forget that more than fifty years ago it was precisely pragmatism that provided the key to the creation of the European Communities and it continues to be the key to success even today.

The establishment of the European Communities for advantageous economic purposes was an exceptionally pragmatic idea, making further integrating development possible. The development of the European Economic Community towards a Customs Union and still further, the ability to develop new forms of cooperation and new institutions with additional authority, and the ability to expand geographically, all illustrate the importance that pragmatism has had in the European Union's history and development.

Today the Union faces new challenges demanding pragmatic adaptation. Prominent amongst them is primarily its further expansion. Although it is clear that all those trying to become EU Member States, all the candidate countries, must meet the criteria, yet we should not prevent any of them from becoming a Member State solely because of political difficulties or cultural prejudices. (Applause)

In its efforts to assume a world role of strategic importance the European Union needs Turkey, therefore the accession negotiations with Turkey must continue. The Union must not deny Turkey the prospect of becoming a member, after all this is something that has already been confirmed. Should this happen, the credibility of the European Union itself would come into question.

The European Union cannot resign itself to having a black hole in the Western Balkans. The accession negotiations must clearly define a European perspective for the Western Balkans. This will require further work with the individual countries of this region, which must strengthen their capacity to meet the membership criteria, as well as with the entire region, which needs a framework for discussing and resolving the problems they share. In its policy towards the neighbouring countries in the East and elsewhere, the European Union must apply the same pragmatism that helped achieve results in the past. Without talking of models, I should like to emphasise that Ukraine and Moldova need the European membership perspective, and they should not be denied it.

Ladies and gentlemen, pragmatism is manifest both in practice and as a state of mind. Obviously, the candidate states must meet all the required criteria in all matters concerning membership. There are good reasons why the Union's practice regarding conformity with eligibility criteria is consistent and strict. If the course for meeting the criteria is long, let it be so. One or two years of negotiations are a small price to pay for preserving the credibility and respect of the European Union's standards. However, the perspective of expansion, the perspective for new members must remain credible.

The countries that are capable of meeting the criteria must not be excluded from the European Union's expansion process. The sense of being excluded gives rise to dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction gives rise to instability. That is why a pragmatic state of mind must be preserved, and any further expansion must be contemplated in the light of what the European Union as a world actor requires.

Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, the European Union is a huge historical achievement. Now it has reached a development level where it must urgently become aware of its leading role in world events and of the responsibility that this status dictates. It is to be expected that the European Union will play a leading role in all matters such as global warming and human rights.

Creativity will continue to be the central motivation in looking for effective policies in areas such as immigration and integration. And, finally, pragmatism will continue to be as important in all matters concerning further expansion, which is necessary in order for the European Union to secure its leading role at world level. All of this may sound somewhat grand. However, progress is always the best cure for stagnation. In this respect the time we live in is not an exception, although it is true that today's issues are more varied than they used to be in the past. However, we must not forget that this too is just a natural consequence of success. (Applause)

  President. − Mr President, may we thank you very warmly for your European speech. Your presence here and your speech have made it clear that Slovenia and the Slovenian Presidency under Prime Minister Janus Janša – and I see two ministers sitting here: Janez Lenarčič and Janez Podobnik – want to work closely with the European Parliament. As the President of Slovenia, you convey that message with particular resonance.

Our experience here in the European Parliament has shown us that it is not the size of the country – small, large or medium-sized – that determines whether an EU Presidency will be successful; it is the spirit guiding the Presidency that counts. I think we can safely say that because Slovenia – and its President – are motivated by such a European spirit, this is a Presidency which will take Europe forward, and we would like to express our warm thanks to you for that.

(Applause)

We would also like to thank you for supporting the European Parliament's priorities. Let me mention just two that you have talked about. The first is climate protection. If we stick to the timetable, we will complete our work so that there is an EU position for the UN Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. We would also like to thank you for your appeal for human rights, for if we, as the European Parliament, do not champion the cause of human rights, who will do so? So often, governments are guided by other interests – which is understandable – but we must find a way of dovetailing these interests and our values skilfully in a way which genuinely benefits people, and that is why human rights are at the heart of our policies here in the European Parliament.

Mr President, thank you for visiting the European Parliament. You will be staying with us for a little longer. Once again, on behalf of the House, may I express my sincere thanks to you personally and to the Slovenian Presidency. We wish you every success for the rest of the six months during which Slovenia is at the helm of the European Union. If you succeed, we all succeed, and by that I mean the European Union. That is our common goal. Thank you. That concludes the formal sitting.

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

6. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: Etelka Barsi-Pataky (A6-0144/2008)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, allow me to add a few words to my speech yesterday during the debate on the launch of one of the largest joint European projects, the Galileo navigation system. I very much appreciate the work of the rapporteurs, who achieved a compromise solution both within Parliament and with the Council and the Commission, and thanks to whom we were able to conclude the drawn-out discussions today. Now we have to decide where the headquarters of Galileo’s supervisory authority should be located. Once again I want to stress that the Czech Republic is ready and is an ideal candidate. I trust that the promise to locate new Union institutions in new Member States will at last come true.

  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I voted against this report. I listened to the same debate that the previous speaker listened to yesterday, and I can be nothing other than horrified by what I heard: a bizarre bidding war for an agency that does not need to exist. We are inventing a new satellite system because the European Union needs some sort of fashionable item of jewellery – this Galileo project is like bling for the European Union. It is expensive; it is not particularly needed; it is anti-competitive; we had a deal with the Chinese, and there is a Russian system and a GPS system already in existence. Europe does not need this system, yet we are going to pay for it.

As we saw from the discharge votes yesterday, we will not police how money on this particular system is spent and, therefore, we will waste millions upon millions of European taxpayers’ euros and pounds. It beggars belief that we have gone into this bizarre system just because it is a kind of vanity cause for us.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Mr President, as I listened to the debate yesterday I thought of the Queen song Bohemian Rhapsody and those immortal words ‘Galileo, Galileo’. And I thought of the words of the lyrics of that song. ‘Is this the real life? Is it just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, With no escape from reality, Open your eyes, Look up to the sky and see’. The Chinese came. They saw. They walked away and are building their own system. The Russians are modernising their own system, Glonas, and to top it all the American GPS, which we already use for free, is being upgraded to be even more accurate and more user-friendly.

We should not be wasting hard-earned taxpayers’ money on a fourth satellite system that offers no advantage over the others. And if I may mix my metaphors, let us shoot this white elephant from the sky. I voted against the report.

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Mr President, I, too, voted against the Barsi-Pataky report. This is simply a political vanity project, a bit like the euro, and like the euro it has no economic and no technical justification. It is unnecessary; it is redundant; it is already becoming obsolescent.

As my colleague has already pointed out, the private sector came and looked at it and decided they wanted no part of it, because it did not make sense. The Chinese came and looked at it, took the best ideas away and decided they would get a better result by doing it themselves and, considering the potential military applications of a global positioning system, the fact that the Chinese have gone off and done it should give us all pause and cause us considerable concern.

We should not waste any more taxpayers’ money on this pointless political gesture.

  Daniel Hannan (NI). – Mr President, when the Galileo project was conceived, President Chirac described it as necessary to combat US technical imperialism. That, in truth, is the only possible argument for it. I have no intention of reprising the arguments we have just heard from my three honourable friends: it makes no economic sense; it makes no technical sense; we are getting free use of the American GPS.

The point I really want to make – and I would appeal to my integrationist colleagues in this House, because I do not think you have to be a Eurosceptic to be worried about this – is this: look at what happened in yesterday’s debate, when my honourable friend, Mr Heaton-Harris, asked us what we were voting on and nobody in the Chamber was able to name the agency to which we had just voted through supply.

You are doing yourselves no favours, even as supporters of the European project, if you hand your taxpayers’ money to these schemes with a ‘Europe right or wrong’ attitude, without stopping to look at whether it is being efficaciously spent or whether it is being lost or stolen. I would appeal to all my colleagues to try and give their taxpayers some value for money from their own point of view.

  President. − Thank you. There are no further calls for the floor or explanations of vote on this report, and before moving on to the next one I should like to take this opportunity to say farewell to Mr Lombardo and wish him all the very best in his new post.

- Report: Erik Meijer (A6-0059/2008)

  Árpád Duka-Zólyomi (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. I supported the report on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as it sends an important message to the Macedonian people. The country has developed a lot since the 2007 report. The economic results are good, and there is success in the area of legislation. A consensus is developing in internal politics, the different national and ethnic communities are able to coexist. With the consistent endorsement of the Ohrid Framework Agreement and the Badinter principle, political issues are imbued with a new spirit supporting proportional representation and the preservation of the identity of minorities. The economic and social development of the Former Yugoslav Republic is a complex one, and 2005 marked its candidature for EU membership. The negative message at the Bucharest NATO summit, where the petty-minded and illogical behaviour of Greece played a major role, was unfortunate. I am sure that, for the EU, nomenclature will not be an obstacle to membership, and I am glad that Parliament has been able to come to an agreement on that. Our decision will be a positive message, as the country is disillusioned by rejection and EU delays. Now is the time to initiate real and genuine accession negotiations with the country. Thank you for your attention.

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – (HU) It is with some misgiving that I voted on the Macedonian report. It is true that we have set more and more requirements for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but are we really doing everything in the interests of Euro-Atlantic integration? In Kosovo’s evolution to independence and Macedonia’s NATO membership veto there may lurk potential dangers. The minority separatists and the majority nationalists could easily upset the fragile balance in Macedonia. The European Union and the United States often meddle in Macedonian politics, we expect and demand many unpopular measures from the Macedonian leadership. This implies responsibility, we ourselves have a responsibility for the stability of the small country and Euro-Atlantic integration. It would be desirable if everyone took that responsibility seriously.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, today's vote is a breakthrough for Macedonia's early accession to the European Union. This success is due to the efforts of the late President Boris Trajkovski, who was a personal and a pan-European friend and who charted this course, but it is also a major success for the current Macedonian Government under Prime Minister Gruevski and Foreign Minister Milososki, who have built friendships throughout Europe for this European country: a country which has an excellent minority policy, which is achieving excellent development, and to which we want to give massive support.

Let me send out a clear message: I call on our fellow Members from Greece finally to give ground on the name issue. This House has said very clearly today that it rejects any blockade due to the name issue and that bilateral issues should not be an obstacle to accession. That is the message that we have sent out with a massive majority of the House today, and it is a hefty shot across the bows of those governments which are blocking progress here. I appeal to everyone to abandon this blockade in the interests of Europe.

Macedonia is a European country, and we hope that a date can be set before the end of this year for the start of accession negotiations.

- Report: Ana Maria Gomes (A6-0080/2008)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, allow me to respond to yesterday’s debate. Most of us warned that the Chinese hunger for African oil, its exchange of weapons for oil, supports corruption and dictatorial regimes and exacerbates poverty. What is more, billions of Chinese products are flooding Africa, making African products hopelessly uncompetitive. This so-called unconditional policy is becoming a bigger and bigger obstacle to achieving the Millennium Goals of eradicating hunger and poverty in developing countries. I was surprised by Commissioner Michel’s somewhat emotional statement that had the Commission had political powers it would join together with China, and by his defence of China’s right to carry out its distinctive foreign unconditional policy, in spite of the fact that China is a member of the UN Security Council and as such is responsible for world developments just like the Union. I object to such sentiments from a member of the Commission.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, China’s role in global economic development is a particularly important one. China is also a success symbol for the people of Africa.

In the course of the last 25 years China has created opportunities for 400 million of its citizens, lifting them out of extreme poverty. In addition, over 200 million Chinese have joined the middle class. China therefore has a wealth of experience in generating economic development. It is expected that this will also have a positive impact on African countries. Trade between Africa and China is estimated to have increased from USD 4 million in 1995 to USD 55 million in 2006. Africa represents an important source of raw materials for China. The Chinese economy requires ever-increasing supplies of energy and raw materials. China is therefore doing all it can to establish a permanent presence in Africa.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I have a particular interest in this report because in a previous professional life as an academic I looked at both Chinese foreign direct investment, inwards and outwards, and African investment and development.

Looking at the report, and it is actually quite a fair report, I think as EU and Member States of the EU we should welcome Chinese investment in Africa, particularly investment in infrastructure, because investment in infrastructure allows local entrepreneurs and local citizens to create wealth for themselves and to trade their way out of poverty.

At the same time we should also be aware of the Chinese thirst and hunger for natural resources – their sort of resource-seeking motives. We should seek to work with China and to tackle those issues, particularly when dealing with unsavoury governments.

One of my concerns over Chinese policy is the fact that it destroys the EU’s attempts, and other aid donors’ attempts, to offer conditionality or put conditionality on aid. We can suggest all the conditions on aid in order to ensure better governance, but the Chinese come in and destroy that.

Overall it is a fair report and I voted in favour.

Written explanations of vote

- Report: Geringer de Oedenberg (A6-0089/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report by Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg, proposing that the proposal for a codified version of the Council Regulation on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia) be approved at first reading in the codecision procedure.

Since it relates to a codification procedure, this proposal did not have to be 'formally' amended by the parliamentary committee and the latter did not do so. Nonetheless, I am taking advantage of this explanation of vote to express surprise at the delay by the European Union in codifying texts which have been amended several times and are becoming increasingly complex to read and apply as time goes by. The codification process is provided for by an interinstitutional agreement of 20 December 1994 resulting from a political intention expressed by the European Council in December 1992, providing for an accelerated procedure for the speedy adoption of codified instruments.

I firmly support the need to codify the rules. That is imperative for democracy, the rule of law, the training of students, proper application of the law by citizens and legal practitioners, etc.

- Report: Arlene McCarthy (A6-0150/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of the common position to resolve a very longstanding problem of mediation in civil and commercial matters, even if this directive will be restricted to cross-border cases, on the basis of a restrictive interpretation of Article 65 EC, but with a broader definition of disputes.

I regret, nonetheless, that the common position does not allow the directive to be implemented through voluntary agreements between the parties, even though it is true that the rules of the Member States on legal proceedings cannot always be amended by agreements between the parties. Overall, this common position is to be welcomed. It remains faithful to the original aim, which was to facilitate access to dispute settlement proceedings and to promote the amicable settlement of disputes by encouraging recourse to mediation and ensuring a satisfactory link between mediation and legal proceedings.

- Report: Etelka Barsi-Pataky (A6-0144/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report by Mrs Barsi-Pataky, which proposes, subject to amendments, that the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the further implementation of European satellite radionavigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) be approved.

I congratulate Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission with responsibility for transport, on his firmness, lucid approach and his discernment and political conviction on this difficult issue. The public sector has rescued the manufacturers, who were in a deadlock as to the strategy to be adopted, particular in relation to financial risks. Thanks to the determination of everyone, particularly the European Parliament, it has been possible to raise the 100% public funding to the tune of EUR 3.4 billion. It is therefore representatives of the citizens who are responsible for the solution to this crisis, with an entry into service in 2014 and deployment of the satellites until 2013. This case demonstrates the need to think quickly about the European resources to be put in place to finance public investments when the private market is found wanting.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld and Gunnar Hökmark (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) We have accepted the proposal negotiated between the Council and Parliament regarding the EGNOS and Galileo satellite radionavigation programmes in which Parliament had already, contrary to our opinion, decided the budget issue. We emphasise that we were against resources from the research budget being used for these projects. In addition, we have sought an account from the Commission of how it intends to create commercial financing of the projects.

However, we welcome the fact that the negotiated proposal enables the European Parliament to evaluate and influence the projects.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The European Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), as the first Community infrastructure and due to its space-related and technological nature, can only be achieved through a common will. The European GNSS is conceived to consist of two programmes: EGNOS and Galileo.

The importance of the GNSS lies in particular in the fact that it is an alternative and complementary system to the US and Russian systems. This objective involves a strategic, economic, industrial and security space, plus a lot more interests, which no Member State can achieve alone.

As this will be the first programme involving Community financing and infrastructures, Parliament and the Council will bear increased joint responsibility for regulating the deployment and operation of the programmes.

For the above reasons and because completing this project will represent a historic and strategic landmark in the technological progress and independence of the European Union, the GNSS and the aforesaid report deserve my full support as they form a future solution.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Galileo is an example of a large-scale technical project which no individual Member State can complete alone. I was positive about the project being financed from the EU’s budget from the start. Unfortunately, it has become evident that the EU has not been able to manage this enormous task in a satisfactory manner. The rapporteur refers to ‘internal disagreement’ as the reason for this. In my view, this is deeply regrettable and I find it understandable that the Council has not been able to accept the huge increase in the budget. It is down to the Commission to present a more satisfactory financing solution for this important project.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome the prospect of Galileo finally being launched. Ms Barsi-Pataky’s report on the further implementation of the European satellite radionavigation programmes signals a development, the benefits of which will be felt in areas ranging from European space policy, research and innovation to the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy. I voted in favour of the report.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) GPS currently already provides many of the services that would be offered by the European satellite radionavigation programme Galileo. However, we should not allow ourselves to become dependent on a satellite-based radionavigation monopoly that is dominated by the US and was set up by the US military. Even the routes of the GPS satellites are drawn in a way which ensures, first and foremost, that the areas in which the US is conducting military operations have good coverage. Our own system will enable us to define the best possible constellation of flight paths for Europe.

In view of the strategic important of the project, I voted in favour of the report, although the issue of funding has not yet been fully resolved.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE), in writing. − (ES) Having had my speech interrupted by the President, who applied speaking time much more strictly to me than to the colleagues before me, I wish to add a few comments. We certainly ought to be pleased with the determination of the institutions in overcoming all the ups and downs of the project. We are finally in a position to initiate guaranteed planning for Galileo’s deployment phase. We are also extremely pleased with the work carried out to make participation in the programme as broad as possible.

Having said this, I now wish to mention one vital point: the civil nature of the project, an essential condition to ensure the transparency of operations. The European system’s independence will enable certification to be issued for the services supplied to users, and will furnish guaranteed quality. These conditions are essential in the development of new commercial applications ushering in a wonderful opportunity for our SMEs, with huge environmental and social potential. Navigation for the blind, planning the most accessible routes for the disabled, assistance for those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, or rapid location of people in emergency situations are all examples of applications geared towards improving lifestyles.

The EP has always given its full support to Galileo through legislative and budgetary undertakings, and has clearly acknowledged it as a strategic project.

  Lydia Schenardi (NI), in writing. – (FR) It will have taken eleven years of painful indecision and political and administrative disagreements to arrive at a solution for the creation of a European satellite radionavigation system. The delay resulting from the method chosen – including Public-Private Partnership, international cooperation outside the European Union, essential participation by all Member States, prescribed role of the European Commission – is estimated at five years. If those principles and methods had been applied to technological and industrial ventures such as Airbus and Ariane, Europe would probably not have its own aircraft manufacturer or space launcher today.

Although the end result is not entirely satisfactory, there are many lessons to be learnt from it. Large strategic projects can only be launched in new areas, where the private sector is unable or unwilling to take risks, if the public authorities are the sole decision-makers and financiers, because these are projects that involve political vision and not simply economic logic. Secondly, in projects of this kind, the fact that they had to go through Community institutions and procedures proved a hindrance and a negative factor, adding to the ideological constraints, where intergovernmental cooperation turned out to be effective. Let us hope those lessons will be taken to heart.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), in writing. − (RO) I voted for the report regarding the amendment of the Council Regulation on continuing to implement European satellite radionavigation programmes. The Galileo project, a component of these programmes, will have multiple applications and will be used for traffic control, transport logistics, natural disaster prevention and response, commercial and governmental services.

Since the first debate on the Community budget for the year 2008, the European Parliament has considered this project a priority and requested the allotment of the necessary funds and the review of the Interinstitutional Agreement to make this possible. As of March 2009, the EGNOS programme will become operational, and the Galileo programme must also become operational by the end of 2013.

The necessary budgetary resources in order to achieve the Galileo projects are estimated at 3.105 billion euros for the 2007-2013 period. The European Parliament and the European Union Council admit the strategic importance of this project and support its achievement. Consequently, the European Commission must inform the Parliament and the Council regularly on the progress in implementing the project.

I congratulate Mrs Rapporteur Barsi-Pataky for the way in which she worked with colleagues from all political groups for this regulation.

- Report: Martine Roure (A6-0148/2008)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The Directive in question aimed to create a uniform status for third-country nationals residing legally in the EU territory, after a period of five years of legal, continuous residence in a Member State.

The aim of the present initiative is to extend the Directive’s scope to beneficiaries of international protection in order to offer them legal certainty about their residence and rights which are comparable to those of EU nationals.

However, there is still a gap as the Directive does not provide for mutual recognition and transfer of responsibility as regards international protection to another Member State. This means that it will not be possible to grant third-country nationals rights of free movement and establishment within the EU as soon as their status is recognised. The assessment of these transfer applications therefore continues to be governed by the 1951 Geneva Convention and by the Council of Europe’s European Agreement on Transfer of Responsibility for Refugees.

Given this situation, it is also vital to ensure that the second Member State in question observes the principle of non-refoulement, so that the person in question is not sent back to a country where he or she would be in danger. At most this person should be sent back to the Member State that originally granted them such protection.

As regards all the other aspects, I believe that the same requirements should be met and that these persons must be subject to the same demands as laid down in the Directive.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The report by Mrs Roure, like the Directive it is intended to amend, is not acceptable. To allow beneficiaries to be granted the international protection of long-term resident status, even temporarily, without imposing any conditions for resources or minimal integration, even when that status can only be granted after five years' residence, is madness.

Furthermore, the proposed provisions are tantamount to safeguarding these persons against any deportation, including deportation to another Member State, unless they have committed a serious offence. Hence it would be impossible to deny these persons the right to reside in the Member State of their choice, regardless of their circumstances and their social attitudes. That prerogative would take precedence over the sovereign right of states to choose who can live in their territory, with what status and in what conditions compatible with public order and security.

Finally, you all know that applications for international protection are used to circumvent the already weak controls and restrictions on immigration that is in fact purely economic. You are aware that, in those circumstances, subsidiary protection is often preferred to refugee status, because it is shorter and more flexible. If its beneficiaries can become long-term residents, it will further encourage immigration.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) The report contains many proposals on integrating people who have been granted international protection. We would have supported these proposals if the vote had taken place in the Swedish Parliament.

In this context, however, the proposals are part of creating a common European asylum system. This report itself is heading in a generous direction regarding asylum policy. At the same time it forms part of building ‘Fortress Europe’. The protection provided by the Geneva Convention is undermined by the EU taking upon itself responsibility for interpreting who is to be granted protection and the form this will take.

We see no other alternative than to say no to all forms of common refugee policy at EU level, as Member States would otherwise lose control of the direction policy is taking. The UN’s conventions should remain the governing instruments for guaranteeing the rights of asylum seekers in international society.

  Jens Holm, Esko Seppänen, Søren Bo Søndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − We abstained from voting on the Roure report today, though we basically support the idea behind the report: to make sure that refugees and persons authorised to reside in a country on the basis of a temporary or subsidiary form of protection enjoy the same rights as long-term residents of that country within the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC. However, we believe it is for the Member States themselves to decide on this matter, not the EU.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I support Ms Roure’s report on the extension of the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection. What the report sets out to achieve is to ensure that beneficiaries of international protection are entitled to the same rights as those we enjoy as EU nationals, after five years of legal residence in the EU. I find this a logical amendment of the previous Directive and have voted in favour of the report.

- Report: Giusto Catania (A6-0073/2008)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. − (IT) Thanks to the drugs strategy for 2005-2012, the European Union has laid the foundations for combating a worrying phenomenon which is growing steadily, especially among the most vulnerable groups such as young people and women, namely the spread of drugs in Europe.

Nonetheless, the stated aims must be achievable and for this reason the EU needs a commitment from civil society, which plays a fundamental role in preventing the spread of drug abuse.

Psychological stability, patient follow-up after detoxification treatment, the creation of an alternative lifestyle in social and employment terms: these are just a few of the benefits afforded by the work of recovery centres, non-profit bodies and NGOs operating in the sector.

For this reason, I - like the rapporteur - hope that over and above direct financial aid for communities dealing with the problem, an appropriate fiscal policy will be devised for organisations performing so-called ‘ergotherapy’, in other words rehabilitation through work. In particular, I expect the Member States to undertake to offer specific tax breaks or the removal of excessive red tape.

We must avoid a situation where national budgetary constraints or mere red-tape forces the closure of these bodies, which do an irreplaceable job in helping drug addicts return to a normal lifestyle.

  Slavi Binev (NI), in writing. − (BG) I supported Mr. Catania’s report and would like to add that there is no simple solution to the drug problem. Drug abuse and drug trafficking destroy society through crime and corruption which accompany them, and drug-related transmissible diseases (AIDS, hepatitis) pose serious threats to public health.

That is why I believe that effective response should be an effort that should involve not only the institutions, civil society and the media but rather a comprehensive programme through which education, religion and sports could also make their contribution to solving this problem and serve as the barrier that should keep our children away from sin. Encouraging sports and religious studies on the curricula at school and outside school can raise considerably the awareness of children of the deadly influence of drugs. By joining the efforts of law enforcement and civil society, particularly at the local community level, it is possible to achieve better results in implementing and further developing the EU Drugs Strategy.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) The rapporteur requires that an organisation for actors from civil society at European level should have a clear added value compared with national, regional and local civil society organisations. In our view this is completely unacceptable, as drugs policy is directly linked to the criminal law and attitude to crime and punishment in the individual countries. Furthermore, the drugs policy must be designed according to the cultural and social aspects of each country in order effectively to help deprived people who need the aid of society in order to return to a functional life.

We therefore choose to vote no to the report in its entirety.

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) Although it is true that, in combating drug use, information, prevention and awareness are essential to avert the risks of drug addiction for the physical and mental health of users, they are unfortunately not enough.

According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, over 70 million Europeans have smoked cannabis and 60% of people that go to discos in France, Italy and the United Kingdom have taken cocaine. It has to be concluded that European information and communication strategies are totally ineffective, since drug supply and demand is unfortunately on the increase everywhere in France and in Europe.

No compromise is acceptable where the use and sale of drugs is concerned. Only zero tolerance works.

The harm caused to thousands of victims by experimental policies to liberalise drugs confirms that evidence.

  Roselyne Lefrançois (PSE), in writing. – (FR) As shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group, I have devoted a great deal of time and energy to this subject with a view, as far as the substance is concerned, to explaining the need for more dialogue with civil society on the fight against drugs and, as far as the form is concerned, proposing a text that can be read and understood by everyone.

With their first-hand experience and capacity for innovation, I think that the actors in civil society can really make a useful contribution to national and European policies on prevention and information as well as helping people out of their dependency and reintegrating them into society.

So many actions are needed at different levels: at work, at school, on the streets and in prisons.

I therefore welcome the adoption of this report, which salutes the creation of the Civil Society Forum on Drugs and underlines the importance of greater cooperation between civil society and all the institutions and agencies of the Union.

The fight against drugs concerns all of us and those who are in the front line of the fight, who work every day to help drug addicts and prevent more people sinking into dependency, must be particularly important partners.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Drug abuse is a prominent problem in societies across Europe, and Scotland is no exception. Mr Catania’s recommendations regarding the role of civil society in drugs policy in the EU rightly call for a more concerted European approach to this issue that knows no borders. Civil society is a key player in tackling all facets of this problem and its initiatives should be benefiting from EU support. The rapporteur’s recommendations need to be heeded if we are to construct an effective policy that fights drug abuse on all fronts. I voted in favour of the report.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) It is debatable whether the illegal cultivation of poppies can be switched to industrial production of medicinal products, but it may be worth trying. What is certain is that the US policy towards Afghanistan and the EU's lack of action on increased opium production have exacerbated the problem.

A forward-looking drugs policy must be based on effective smashing of drug rings, instant deportation of foreign drug dealers and the adoption of targeted priority actions, along with the provision of better treatment services for drug users. There are increasingly vocal calls for the legalisation or liberalisation of drugs, but even in Switzerland, after almost 15 years of handing out heroin, hopes that this would help addicts overcome their addiction have finally been dashed. The report before us leans heavily towards liberalisation, and I have therefore voted against it.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN), in writing. − (PL) I welcome the discussion on drugs. They constitute a serious problem but bureaucratic efforts have not curtailed the activities of dealers who sell drugs at schools, centres of higher education, housing estates and other public places, and it is unlikely that they will do so in the future.

In 1998 a special session of the General Assembly of the United Nations set itself the goal of creating a drug-free world in the course of 10 years. Subsequent years saw the publication of many recommendations, regulations, decisions, reports and a Green Paper. We have today voted on yet another draft resolution. We would do well to reflect on what all this has achieved. I am sorry to have to say that never in the history of mankind have drugs been as easily obtainable as they now are. All that remains is for it to be possible to order them through the Internet.

I voted in favour of the resolution because I support any measure to combat drugs. Nonetheless, I should like to point out that until we isolate producers from distributors and introduce radical changes to the penal code to create an effective deterrent for people who make a living out of drugs, this problem will not be reduced. On the contrary, it will increase in magnitude.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. − (IT) I believe that it is necessary, not just at European level but also nationally and locally, to promote a dialogue with and between the various civil society stakeholders so as to avert the terrible dangers represented by drugs.

Civil society must be regarded as a key ally of the Union and the Member States in achieving the goals set out in the EU drugs strategy.

Indeed, thanks to their experience in the field, therapeutic communities can support awareness-raising campaigns by providing more and better information about the risks inherent in drug abuse and about possible prevention programmes.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) No one questions the importance of the enormous, often successful work carried out by civil organisations to help people who have become dependent on drugs. We need to gather together all the forces for good in the battle against harmful, addictive substances. It was therefore gratifying to see a report which highlights the initiatives being carried out in Europe.

The reason why I abstained from voting today thus has nothing to do with the actual subject of the report. Instead the reason can be read under the heading ‘Civil society – the external dimension’. Some time ago, an agonising decision, I have to admit, I voted in favour of a report which supported facilitating a switch to legal poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, with production being used in pain-relieving drugs. One of the reasons for this was the number of reports which had appeared on the negative consequences of spraying the existing crops using planes and the desperate situation of the Afghan people. The report encourages both separate cultivation and spraying, which is inconsistent. The report also grants support to organisations in Europe working to produce substances derived from coca leaves, for example, for therapeutic or other ‘lawful use’. I am strongly against this. As the main intention of the report is nevertheless good, I finally chose to abstain.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SK) The motion for a resolution on organ donation and transplantation is a part of a world-wide debate on child safety. In order to help protect children effectively, I am working on a European campaign called ‘Do you know where your child is now?’. The chapter of this resolution dealing with organ trafficking is directly linked to it. The call to Member States and to the Council to adopt effective measures to sever the links between the lack of organs and organ trafficking is therefore more than justified.

In order to combat organ trafficking, a long-term strategy must be adopted with a view to eliminating the social inequalities at the root of such practices. We must combat trafficking in organs and tissues, which should be universally banned, in particular where it concerns the transplantation of organs and tissues from minors. I am deeply disappointed that Europol has not carried out a survey of organ selling and trafficking, citing the absence of documented cases.

On the contrary, reports by the Council of Europe and the World Health Organisation clearly prove that organ trafficking is a problem in Member States of the Union, too. We ask the European Commission and Europol to improve the monitoring of organ trafficking and draw the necessary conclusions. I hope that Slovakia can make use of its EU Presidency to move this very important agenda forward.

- Report: Reimer Böge (A6-0157/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management as regards adjustment of the multiannual financial framework, on the basis of the report by Mr Böge.

That adjustment had become unavoidable because of the delay in adopting certain operational programmes under headings 1B and 2, EUR 2 034 million at current prices of the appropriations set aside for the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Funds, rural development and the European Fisheries Fund which could not be committed in 2007 or carried forward to 2008. It was therefore becoming sensible for that amount to be transferred to subsequent years in accordance with paragraph 48 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, increasing the relevant expenditure ceilings for commitment appropriations.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), in writing. − (RO) I voted for the report regarding the adjustment of the multiannual financial framework, presented by our colleague Böge. The amounts not used in 2007 from the commitment appropriations for the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the Rural Development Fund and the European Fund for Fisheries should be carried forward for the upcoming years. Thus 2.034 billion euros will be transferred, according to 48 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, for 2008-2013. The amounts will be allocated mainly in 2008 (approximately 56%), and during 2000-2013 the influence of this transfer will be insignificant.

We have to analyze the reasons that have led to a lack of use of these funds. First of all, there are 45 operational programmes that were submitted late to the European Commission for approval. 72% of the reprogramming required is due to delays in rural development programmes. Some were sent to the Commission in December, thus making it impossible to adopt the programmes in 2007. National institutional constraints and a lack of previous programming experience are some of the causes for these delays. Most of the 45 delayed operational programmes come from the new Member States. I request the Commission to assist them more in acquiring the new procedure and training the personnel assigned to the use of these funds.

- Report: Marie-Arlette Carlotti (A6-0042/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by Mrs Carlotti on the implementation of the programming of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) and, as the report indicates, I regret that the fund has not been incorporated in the Union budget, which would have allowed democratic scrutiny.

Let us hope that the subject of the inclusion of the EDF in the budget will come up again in the mid-term review of the financial perspectives in 2009. As regards the EDF and its role in the eradication of poverty and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), it is becoming urgent to programme it and hence to finalise the political agreements needed for its implementation. Priority will need to be given to improving health care and basic education and, I would add, subsistence farming.

At a time when the Doha agenda of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is at a virtual standstill, it is becoming urgent for the European Union to use its development instruments to participate in this ambitious, just and commendable plan to eradicate world poverty.

  Mikel Irujo Amezaga (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of the report, since I feel it is most important to stress the need for EDFs in ACP countries. It is essential that documents such as the Paris Declaration of March 2005 be taken seriously and periodically revised to produce the net aid figures. It is nevertheless true that a dreadful lack of coordination between the Member States led to cutbacks in their official development aid, from 0.4% of GDP in 2006 to less than 0.38% in 2007. This tiny percentage represents a loss of 1 700 million euros. The worst thing of all, though, is that partner countries are in a constant stop-and-go situation, with no chance of making plans for the long term, since they have no idea whether they will have sufficient funds to do so, even though this has been promised by the Member States. The saddest aspect of all this is that we demand they keep their side of the bargain when we forget to keep ours. We cannot work together like this.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome the Carlotti report on the implementation of the programming of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF). To ensure that the EDF’s goals of poverty eradication in partner countries and regions and the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals are achieved a stronger parliamentary scrutiny of its delivery instruments is required. I further agree with the idea that the programming of the Fund should pay particular attention to MDG-related areas such as health, education, respect of the environment and encouragement of good governance. The current ratification difficulties the 10th EDF is encountering need to be addressed in order to facilitate swift implementation of the Fund. I voted in support of the report.

  Vincent Peillon (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report by Mrs Carlotti on the implementation of the programming of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF).

The EDF is the main Community instrument for development cooperation aid to the ACP (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific) countries. It works in particular on achievement of the Millennium Goals set in the United Nations in 2000.

However, the 10th EDF (2008-2013) has at the moment come to a standstill. Since the revised Cotonou Agreement has not been ratified by some of the ACP countries, the EUR 22.7 million budget available since 1 January 2008 is still not being used.

The text adopted by Parliament therefore calls urgently for an end to the deadlock and outlines a number of issues: priority for the reduction of poverty (and health and education in particular), specific attention to the gender dimension and a sustainable development strategy for the countries concerned.

Finally, Parliament would like to see the EDF incorporated in the general budget of the Union, in order to make European policies more coherent and improve democratic scrutiny of its management.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The implementation of the budget of the 10th European Development Fund must not be assessed in purely accounting terms. This is not the function of this Parliament, as duly noted by the report in question. Rather than discussing the integration of the EDF into the Commission’s budget or the rules on using the balance remaining from each financial year, what concerns us is the coherence between the use of these funds and the political goals of the European Union with regard to the ACP countries.

In this respect, it is striking that the current situation on the ground is quite different from what existed when these instruments, and their framework, were created. In addition to the China factor to be taken into account in many of these countries, consideration must be given to the effects of changes in the agricultural and food markets, climate change and the new approach of the United States towards Africa. In light of all this, it is felt that the road followed so far is no longer totally appropriate and this, I would stress, is our main concern.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) When the EU, the world’s largest donor of aid, operates in the developing world, our values must be clear. Human rights must be our watchword, not just in theory but also in practice. Saying, therefore, that the EU should not use the European Development Fund to promote democracy and human rights by being able to demand development in this area conflicts with our desire to achieve real results. Aid does good only if it benefits the citizens, therefore we as donors must be able to set criteria to encourage the development of democracy, human rights and a functioning civil society. Creating development sometimes also requires direct help through peacekeeping operations. These should also be able to be covered by the European Investment Fund, as such operations reduce human suffering and prevent catastrophe in a very real way.

Naturally, we in the rich world must not impose a particular way of living on other people. However, we have a responsibility to enable choice where today there is no choice. Therefore, I was disappointed that what is otherwise a good and important report calls into question what is for me a fundamental principle of something being done in return in terms of free and human rights, and the opportunity for peacekeeping operations within the European Investment Fund.

- Report: Erik Meijer (A6-0059/2008)

  Angelika Beer (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The Green Group will not vote in favour of the Meijer report on Macedonia. Although the report contains many parts that clearly set out the progress Macedonia has made, it is totally unacceptable how, at the very last minute, Greek politicians have lobbied against the paragraph on the name issue. The most notable expression of this was the wish to delete the reference to the 1995 Interim Accord in which Greece gave its assurance that the name issue would not be an obstacle to Macedonia’s membership of international institutions. Greece not only calls into question its commitment to international law but is also interfering in the sovereignty of another state in an unprecedented way. This behaviour by an EU Member State is not acceptable.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (CS) FYROM is one of the few countries in the world whose name has not been officially recognised by all other countries. Although this republic has introduced various ethnic and religious holidays, the abnormal bilateral agreement on the status of US citizens still exists. Among the successes are the measures taken against organised crime and corruption, achieved by the government in spite of the powerlessness of the occupation forces in Kosovo to do anything about these problems. I find it incomprehensible that to date no united position has been agreed on giving citizens abroad the opportunity to vote. In the referendum in Montenegro these citizens were discriminated against; in the case of the elections in Macedonia the EU is hesitant.

Article 31 welcomes the police raid on a weapons cache. I consider the information in the second part of the paragraph about terrorists being maltreated when arrested to be a poor joke. I do not know of any cases of policemen politely asking terrorists to give themselves up. Apart from the unusual situation concerning the name of the country and the agreement with the US that flies in the face of international agreements. One of the unusual aspects of the FYROM issue is its disputes with its neighbours. The way I see it, we must insist on these disputes being resolved before the country joins the EU. Since some of the amendments can change the meaning of the report, our vote on the final ‘product’ will depend on whether or not the amendments are adopted.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Mr Meijer’s progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s movement towards accession is a balanced report on a divisive issue. FYROM must continue with a reform-driven agenda in order to ensure that accession negotiations can be started as soon as possible. To preserve a negotiating position on the name issue we must avoid any temptation to use FYROM’s naming as a hurdle to its involvement in international institutions. I therefore welcome the report and the rapporteur’s efforts in ensuring that the naming issue did not dominate the document.

  Richard Howitt (PSE), in writing. − British Labour MEPs are pleased to have voted in favour of this resolution, which marks a genuine effort to maintain the progress of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) towards EU membership highlighting positive movements in combating corruption and protecting the freedom of media as well as pressing for the further actions necessary towards the opening of accession negotiations. We note that there has been considerable progress, and look forward to the possibility of opening accession talks with FYROM.

In relation to amendment 13 on the name issue negotiations, we voted against this amendment. Although we fully support all the work being done to find a resolution to the name issue, we do not believe that this should be linked in anyway to FYROM’s membership of international organisations. Each should be decided on its own merits.

Secondly, we abstained on the vote on amendment 7 discussing the issue of visa liberalisation. As the UK is not a party to the Schengen Agreement under which this issue rests, it was not appropriate for us to support this amendment.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Today’s success is due to the coordinated and effective efforts we have made together with many other fellow Members throughout the spectrum of the European Parliament.

This attempt was successful thanks also to the shift late in the day in the official Greek line in favour of finding a genuine compromise solution by means of a composite name acceptable to all.

We must work hard to capitalize on this progress and arrive at a solution through a fair compromise. This must be achieved under the same UN auspices before the end of 2008.

It is in the interests of Greece and of the peoples to maintain peace and stability in the region, so another impasse lasting many years must be prevented. Public life must be rid of the Skopia syndrome.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) have voted against the report. We are opposed to a capitalist, warmongering EU, and hence also to any enlargement of the EU. The root cause of the Balkan problems is imperialist schemes, EU, USA and NATO interventions, and border changes.

The accession of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and other Balkan countries to the EU and ΝΑΤΟ involves their peoples in the imperialist standoffs between the USA, the EU and Russia over the control of energy sources and transport channels. Those living in the wider region are being put at serious risk.

The Communist Party of Greece is not concerned with name issues. It supports a mutually acceptable solution about the name, which must represent a purely geographical definition divorced from divisive nationalism and enslavement.

Those who have felt the need to excuse themselves in front of the Greek people because of their last-minute volte-face on the Macedonian name issue, and who belong to the EU, the New Democracy, PASOK, the Left-Wing Coalition (SYN) and the Popular Orthodox Rally (LA.O.S.), are rubbing their hands with glee. They voted in favour of the adoption of the supposedly positive amendments of the name in a bid to divert the people from the main point, which is imperialist intervention and schemes for the Balkans. This diversion is designed to conceal their subjugation to imperialist aims and the appointment of the EU, the USA and NATO as arbiters. All this exposes our country to threats and pressure designed to extort money in exchange for full participation in the imperialist schemes, which have been becoming even worse since the NATO Summit in Bucharest.

- Report: Ana Maria Gomes (A6-0080/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the excellent own-initiative report by Mrs Gomes on China's policy and its effects on Africa. Although the fact that China is ready to cooperate with African countries in a concrete and pragmatic way is to be welcomed, there are a number of areas of concern, such as the cooperation by China with repressive regimes in Africa, the failure to respect social and environmental rules, the supply of arms to repressive and undemocratic regimes. I support the proposal that the African Union, China and the EU should set up a standing consultative body to improve the coherence and effectiveness of their respective cooperation activities and to establish a global framework for concrete operational projects on common challenges such as adaptation to climate change, renewable energies, agriculture, water and health.

I also support the idea of a dialogue between the Chinese People's National Congress, the Pan-African Parliament, African national parliaments and our European Parliament, with the aim of fostering sustainable development and enhancing their capabilities for scrutiny of the executive in peace and democracy.

  Philip Claeys (NI), in writing. − (NL) The Gomes report rightly points to various unacceptable Chinese practices in Africa, and sometimes gets down to the nitty-gritty. The ethnocide in Tibet might be receiving a lot of attention at the moment, but Chinese policy in Africa is at least equally indicative of a regime that could not care less about human rights and other rules of the game.

The Chinese do business with anyone as long as it satisfies the thirst for oil. Chinese firms and businessmen create extraterritorial Chinese islands that are protected by corrupt rulers, who are in turn protected by Chinese vetoes in the Security Council. Europe is no match for the Chinese, and slowly but surely we are being driven out of Africa. Europe must in the end just realise that, as the Chinese gain the upper hand in Africa, our constantly repeated message of democracy, freedom and good governance, not to forget sustainability, is becoming completely meaningless. It is time for a different strategy.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the Gomes report on China’s policy and its effects on Africa because I consider that, in light of the growing Chinese presence in Africa, the European Union must try, by adopting a common position on dialogue, to encourage China to base its political and economic actions in Africa on criteria which will not prevent the promotion of peace, human security, rule of law or sustainable development.

I also endorse the call for the European Union to persevere in promoting respect for the principles by which it is governed, regardless of the success of its dialogue initiatives.

  Jens Holm, Erik Meijer, Esko Seppänen, Søren Bo Søndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − The report by Ana Maria Gomes covers many important aspects, not least the fact that the involvement of the EU and China should be in the interest of the African countries and people, and that external investors operating in Africa should respect social and environmental rules. This is why we chose to support the report. However, we do not support the phrasing in the first paragraph highlighting the importance of the Treaty of Lisbon in enhancing effectiveness and coherence in the EU's external relations.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The Committee on Development has drawn up a very balanced report on China's policy and its effects on Africa.

I have all the more satisfaction in voting for it in that I had a very unfortunate experience at the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. In my report on the impact of foreign direct investment, I made a few critical observations on Chinese investments in Africa. The ACP delegates, with the connivance of the Socialists, Communists and Greens, succeeded in removing all of them from the report.

Why were they unwilling to state that Chinese FDI is concentrated on the extractive industries and often supports ACP governments in policy orientations that are not in the interest of democracy, rule of law and poverty eradication in those countries?

Why did they remove the finding that Chinese FDIs are invested in certain multinationals that inundate African markets with low quality goods, especially textiles?

I welcome the reference in the report’s explanatory statement to the fact that the Chinese scramble in Africa is reaping African national resources for Chinese profit and undermining sustainable development. There is also concern about the risk that China might export some of its worst home practices to Africa …

(Explanation of vote cut pursuant to Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Erika Mann (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I would like to take the opportunity afforded by this explanation of vote to express my warm thanks to the rapporteur, Ana Maria Gomes. The report being voted on is a very successful one. I would also like to voice my thanks for the fact that numerous aspects of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade have been incorporated into the report.

In my view, it is very important to assess China's policy in Africa fairly without generalised condemnation of its engagement there. Instead, the EU's own engagement should be stepped up via the approach centred on 'More Europe in Africa'. This could improve European visibility and achieve a stronger European presence, thereby strengthening the contacts between the EU and Africa. Closer economic ties between the two continents could be of great benefit to both sides.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Ana Gomes’ report on China’s policy and its effects on Africa highlights both the positive move Beijing has made by engaging with Africa, while also making the point that China’s policy requires improvements. On the one hand the EU must welcome China’s development role in Africa though, worryingly, through its aid China is exporting some of its worst home practices including corruption and disregard for labour rights and environmental standards. Indeed, engagement with China, on these issues and its relationship with repressive regimes such as Sudan and Zimbabwe, requires a common EU approach. It is with these views in mind that I voted in favour of the report’s recommendations.

  Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. − The report by Ms Ana Maria Gomes covers many important aspects. Not least the fact that the involvement of the EU and China should be in the interest of the African countries and people, and that external investors operating in Africa should respect social and environmental rules. This is why we chose to support the report.

However, we do not support the phrasing in the first paragraph highlighting the importance of the Treaty of Lisbon in enhancing effectiveness and coherence in the EU’s external relations.

In terms of any reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, Sinn Féin stands for real reform which would allow for farming and rural life to become sustainable in Ireland, Europe and in the wider world.

  Lydie Polfer (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Gomes report because it provides a very detailed analysis of the causes and consequences of Chinese domination in Africa from both an economic and a political perspective.

China’s impressive economic rise in the past 20 years has led to an increase in the demand for oil and other raw materials. China today imports 30% of its oil from Africa; that figure will reach 45% by 2010.

China also invests massively in infrastructures in Africa.

These commitments are without preconditions concerning human rights or social and environmental conditions.

Europe must sit up and take note of this situation and it must try to define a strategic partnership with both Africa and China to ensure the sustainable development of the African continent.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The report in question correctly defines the current state of Chinese policy in Africa, describing in detail the investments, financing and political consequences. Unfortunately it is unrealistic in its proposals, repeatedly suggesting that the EU should be urged to encourage China to adopt ideal behaviour in the area of human rights, workers’ rights and respect for the environment and, finally, to do in its external policy what it does not do in its internal policy. In the chapter on what should be done with regard to the (correct) portrayal of Chinese policy in Africa and its consequences, there is no guidance on what the EU’s strategy should be, in partnership with countries such as India, Brazil and (an unacceptable omission) the United States.

The current global situation is nothing like the models that have framed geostrategic thinking in recent decades. The emergence of new economies which differ greatly from each other, the generalised and globalised increase in consumption, the competition for essential goods and raw materials, the threat of social revolt, the risk of preference for muscular political regimes, all these new realities require analysis and, in particular, a more strategic proposal with a different view of the future. That is why I abstained from voting on this report.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. − (IT) The report by Ana Maria Gomes on ‘China's policy and its effects on Africa’ highlights the primordial role now occupied by Beijing in Africa’s diplomatic, economic and political equilibrium.

It is vital in my opinion that, even though China has turned its spotlight on the hitherto forgotten continent of Africa, its conduct must be kept within limits so as not to slip into a potential new form of colonialism, which has after all marked and written shameful pages of our own, European, history.

To this end I hope the EU will draw up a coherent strategy to ensure that China shows respect for issues such as governance, the fight against corruption, the protection of human rights, employment and the environment, and in order to guarantee clear, transparent agreements between the two countries.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) Africa is a continent in need of aid, stronger trade links and increased participation in the globalisation which is creating greater welfare for all. China has quickly come to be an important partner on the African continent, with a huge appetite for raw materials, not least the oil which several African countries possess. The fact that more and more countries are interested in Africa boosts its development. However, we must state that China’s uncritical approach when it comes to obtaining access to these raw materials, with little or no consideration for human rights, corruption and undemocratic regimes, poses a challenge for the EU, which has long insisted that trade and aid must go hand in hand with demands for democratic development taking into account free and human rights. The European Parliament clearly urging China to take human rights and development for the people of Africa into account is an important signal. Development is a broader concept than economic progress alone and I therefore wholeheartedly support the view that human rights and democracy must be an important aspect of international relations, including China’s relations with Africa.

7. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 12.50 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

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

9. Situation in Burma (debate)

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

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) The European Union is closely following the situation in Burma, or Myanmar. We are actively supporting efforts, made primarily by the United Nations, to accelerate the transition to democracy, reconciliation and the country’s development. We are also consulting our Asian partners about all these issues. The special envoy, Mr Fassino, reported to the European Parliament on the situation in Burma/Myanmar. He also informed Parliament about the alignments taking place with Burma’s neighbours and other ASEAN members.

As we know, the United Nations Special Envoy, Mr Gambari, visited the country at the beginning of March. I must stress our disappointment that his visit did not have any obvious results. Most of all, we had the impression that the Burmese authorities were not prepared to cooperate with the international community. The European Union would like to see the authorities accept Mr Gambari’s proposals for a further political process. The entire international community agrees with these proposals, which are not too far-reaching.

The EU and Mr Gambari are pointing to similar problems. In addition, the EU regularly sends key political communications to Burma/Myanmar. One of those key communications is the recent European Parliament resolution regarding the situation in that country. Our central joint message is principally that national reconciliation, stability and prosperity will only be possible through a credible and inclusive process of democratisation. This is why the European Union is keenly following the response of the opposition to the coming referendum on the constitution.

We are calling on the authorities to allow an unimpeded and open debate about the constitution before the referendum, to stop persecuting political activists and to repeal laws that limit the freedom of expression. Regardless of the current situation, the European Union has not lost hope that the Burmese authorities will guarantee a free and fair referendum and allow the presence of international observers. It is prepared to support observers from ASEAN countries.

In addition to allowing correct conduct of the referendum, we are calling on Burma to release political prisoners and cease arrests. The Council joins the European Parliament in appealing to Burma not to extend Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest. We hope that China and ASEAN countries will also continue to support Mr Gambari’s mission and the position of the United Nations Security Council in the future. We sent this message through diplomatic channels and via our special envoy.

At the session of the General Affairs and External Relations Council to be held next week, the European Union intends to extend the validity of the Common Position on Burma. In this way humanitarian activities, albeit limited, will still be possible while sanctions remain in force. We are calling on international partners to secure more aid, which the citizens of Burma urgently need. The European Union will continue to provide such aid.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner is unable to attend this meeting. On her behalf and on behalf of the Commission, I would like to say a few things about Burma.

In a couple of weeks, on 10 May, the Burmese people will be asked to approve or reject a constitution. The European Union and its partners believe that in the preparation of the draft constitution there was insufficient involvement of the various political forces and ethnic groups that exist in the country. The ruling junta has done exactly as it pleases in this process.

As a consequence, the constitution stipulates that 25% of the members of parliament will be appointed from the military while the remaining 75% will be elected. It is possible that Aung San Suu Kyi may be able to vote in the elections scheduled for 2010, and perhaps even stand as a candidate, but the regime seems to want to prevent her from becoming President of the Union of Myanmar some day. China, India and ASEAN have some influence: their main concerns are the country’s stability as well as trade relations and investment.

With the assistance of discreet Chinese diplomacy, Mr Gambari, the UN Special Envoy, was unable to open up the political process any further and he stated that he was going to concentrate on economic, social and humanitarian issues.

Given the absence of tangible projects, on 29 April the General Affairs Council will discuss all the possible operations the European Union could carry out to influence the situation in Burma. I would like to stress that the European Union’s aim is to promote a balanced approach to the Burmese issue; above all we want objective results. On 19 November 2007 the Council adopted a version of the common position which introduced new sanctions. The EC Regulation entered into force on 10 March and its annual review is due to take place at the end of this month.

The European Union’s sanctions reflect our dissatisfaction with the slow rate of progress towards democracy, the persistent detention of numerous political prisoners and the violation of fundamental freedoms. Nevertheless, the impact of the sanctions must be examined regularly to ensure that they are having a direct impact on the members of the regime and their resources. The Commission has established assistance programmes under the general cooperation policy and these focus on health and education. I am pleased to note that the European Parliament has expressed its support for these measures under its right of scrutiny.

This is in addition to ECHO’s humanitarian aid to assist neighbouring countries and the Burmese refugees in the region. We continue to support Mr Gambari’s mission. The European Union is part of the ‘Group of Friends’, which brings together in New York the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the ASEAN Chair, India, Japan and Norway, which are all involved in monitoring the situation in Burma. The EU Special Envoy for Burma, Mr Fassino, plays a key role in supporting Mr Gambari’s mission. That is the information I wanted to pass on to you on behalf of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner.

  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, we are discussing Burma today, because the European Union’s targeted sanctions are due for renewal in five days’ time and the Burmese authorities are pressing ahead with a referendum on their sham constitution in just over two weeks.

We want to make a sincere appeal to the Burmese regime to take a step that is very much in its own interest as well as the interests of the Burmese people: to take the necessary action to rejoin the international community of nations. The policy of suspicious isolation has been tried for almost the whole of Burma’s life as an independent state and it has failed. It has harmed Burma and it has harmed the Burmese people.

In 1948, Burma was the world’s largest exporter of rice, the producer of 75% of the world’s teak and the wealthiest country in south-east Asia. It was believed to be on the fast track to development. Today, it has a GDP per capita lower than Rwanda or Bangladesh.

The Burmese economy urgently needs assistance from international financial organisations, yet, ever since Burma turned in upon itself and away from democracy, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have all, quite rightly, refused to extend any further financial help. The refusal of the Burmese regime to engage with external realities has led countries across the world to impose economic sanctions.

Burma needs friends to help protect its national interests on the global stage, but even ASEAN has now declared, again quite rightly, that it will no longer defend the Burmese authorities in any international forum.

We say to the Burmese Government: the world is not against you if only you will stop turning your back against the world. You do not need to be frightened of the international community any more than you need to fear your own people. You do not need the ninth largest army and the fifteenth largest military budget in the world. You do not need to live in a bunker. Recognise the democratic aspirations of your people, cease the political repression and enable opposition forces to engage fully and freely in a fresh constitutional process.

  Józef Pinior, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, first of all we want to call on the Burmese regime: to release political opponents and the more than 1 800 political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the leaders of the ’88 Generation Students and the leaders of the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy arrested in 2005; to account for all the casualties and missing persons from last September’s crackdown on protests by Buddhist monks and democracy activists, including the whereabouts of missing monks and nuns; to secure access to Burma for the incoming UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma and to permit opposition political parties to meet with the Special Envoy.

There are real concerns about the so-called referendum: there is a danger that the referendum under current repressive conditions will only cement in place continued military rule. Since announcing the referendum, the government issued Law No 1/2008, which denies voting rights to members of religious orders, including monks and nuns. It also imposes a three-year prison sentence on anyone found ‘lecturing, distributing papers, using posters or disturbing the voting in any other manner in the polling booths or at a public or private place to destroy the referendum’.

We seek guarantees from the Government to convene independent election commissions, compile a proper voter registration list, lift longstanding restrictions on the media, permit freedom of association, expression and assembly in Burma, and revoke new regulations that criminalise legitimate debate about the referendum.

  Marco Cappato, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Barrot, you referred to a balanced approach. I must say that I fear the approach is overly timid, first and foremost because there is information that this House needs to know, namely that the EU possesses instruments for the promotion of democracy and human rights.

These are new instruments, and now it is not even mandatory to have authorisation from a country’s dictatorship to be able to disburse the funds. Therefore, either we discuss what is happening as onlookers or, alternatively, we discuss it as people who are wondering what can be done. If that is the case, we need to know – today – how we are disbursing these funds, whom we are able to help, and how we are managing to get information into and out of the country. For example, we need to consider how money is being spent in the so-called war on drugs, money which in Burma goes straight into the Burmese regime’s coffers so as to be better able to repress its own people, courtesy of the United Nations Office. We in the European Union should also confront this problem. As for the referendum, it is not so much that it did not sufficiently involve all parties, as you said: the referendum is a cover-up so that the regime is better able to carry on wantonly flouting human and civil rights in Burma.

I wished to say to the Council representative, Mr Lenarčič, that since the monks were heavily involved in the non-violent struggle and even paid with their lives for that struggle, I think your announcement that you intend not to invite the Dalai Lama to Brussels for much-needed political dialogue with the EU countries will symbolically have – and has already had – a negative impact on the non-violent struggle of the Burmese people, especially the monks.

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (GA) Mr President, in October last year, the world was witness to thousands of Buddhist monks and members of the public marching through the streets of Rangoon demanding freedom and reform from Burma’s unjust and violent military regime. This was the largest anti-government demonstration since the bloody suppression of the first democracy movement in 1988.

If anybody thinks that the situation could have been worse than it was last year, all we have to do is look at the evidence: poverty, food shortages, continuing oppression, the elimination of political opponents, the continuing incarceration of a Sakharov and Nobel Peace Prize winner, the continuing oppression and suppression of any alternative viewpoint being brought forward.

It is incumbent on us within the European Union to continue the strong messages of support that we gave in September 2007 to the people who are campaigning in Burma. Now we are being faced with a situation whereby a new constitution is being put to a referendum and this constitution is being labelled by some as the next step towards the restoration of democracy, yet it allocates a quarter of the seats in the parliament to the military; it forbids Ms Aung San Suu Kyi from standing as a candidate for that election because she is married to a foreigner, and it forces those to abide totally by the diktat of the junta.

China must now be involved in bringing pressure to bear on the junta in Burma to ensure that proper representation is given to the people, but Bangladesh and Thailand must also be given support to allow them to encourage the Burmese authorities to look anew. We must redouble our efforts in sanctions and in taking strong political action, not just at European level, but throughout the world, and in particular at the United Nations. All Member States of the European Union should be speaking with one voice at the United Nations to put pressure on the authorities to take action at that level.

  Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, as has just been pointed out, the humanitarian and human rights situation in Burma is deteriorating and it is up to the next General Affairs and External Relations Council to acknowledge this loud and clear and to redefine the action implemented under the European policy.

What seemed initially to be a positive sign, the famous constitutional reform, quickly became an utterly Machiavellian project. The presence of military personnel in government is thus going to be included formally in the constitution, in violation of all international standards and in the absence of any observers, while all those who oppose the current regime are excluded from electoral representation. This is a complete farce and it will plunge Burma even further under the junta’s iron rule.

It has to be said that this represents a failure of the inclusive strategy, within Burma itself and at regional level, implemented by the European Union and the United Nations. Our Envoy has not even managed to set foot in Burma. Today our double-sided strategy – sanctions/incentives – therefore has to become more effective and more focused. In other words, we need better, more insightful and more regular implementation of the criteria already laid down in accordance with the stated objectives.

Our financial measures must isolate completely the companies that are linked to the junta or that, in one way or another, help to fund it, as well as the people in power who can swan off to other countries to go shopping and send their children to schools abroad. The same applies to the banking sanctions imposed on them, which at present do not prohibit transfers via European banks.

As far as ASEAN is concerned, the negotiations on the free trade agreement must be seen as an opportunity to ensure that the neighbouring states refrain from implementing any strategy that might offset the sanctions against Burma.

The second aspect relates to incentives. At the same time, we must support the life blood of the country: on a humanitarian level, which goes with saying of course, but also on a political level. That means publicly condemning the Burmese authorities, denouncing the content of the referendum and the procedures used, and promoting with conviction the rule of law and fundamental freedoms via EIDHR projects. It also means supporting and protecting human rights activities, combating the impressment of children into armed factions and protecting children from violence.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, please do not think me Chinaphobic because I often criticise China’s position in my speeches. However, I think there can be no doubt when it comes to the situation in Burma and the well-known responsibilities of the Chinese Government, which backs the Burmese Council of State. These are moreover the same responsibilities that China has in Darfur, in Tibet and in many other parts of the world where human rights violations are being perpetrated, not least in China itself.

Obviously, then, I can join in with and endorse the expression of indignation, abhorrence and condemnation customarily contained in our resolutions, but I remain sceptical as to how effective it can be. I back the clear condemnation and deplore the fact that in 45 years the Burmese regime has made no progress on respect for human rights and freedom of conscience.

How could I fail to condemn the political and ethnic repression of the Burmese people? Indeed, I would take this opportunity to recall in particular the case of the Karen people who have been proudly holding out for decades in defence of their identity, and I would just as resolutely condemn the referendum mechanism enshrined in the constitution which the regime is seeking to impose on Burma. Of course, ladies and gentlemen, on a sentimental level I agree with everything stated in the resolution, but given that – as usual – everything emanating from EU acts remains at the level of sentiment I think it is utterly useless. As the resolution says, not even the renewed targeted sanctions have had the desired impact.

Consequently, it is certainly worth calling for the sanctions to be tightened, but similar pressure should above all be used against states such as China, Russia and India, in order that, by virtue of their economic and political influence over the Burmese regime, they cooperate with the European Union in this area and stop supplying weapons and strategic resources. Basically I also agree with the points put very cogently by Mrs Flautre.

  Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in a few days' time, the Council will decide whether to maintain its common position on Burma and whether to maintain sanctions. In Burma, there have been no substantive changes with regard to democracy, the rule of law or respect for human rights. Almost 2 000 political prisoners are being detained there. Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for years. In short, there is not the slightest reason to ease the sanctions.

Admittedly, a constitutional referendum has been announced and a draft constitution has been published, but this lacks any democratic legitimacy. The public has not been consulted, and neither has the democratic opposition. The draft constitution is full of democratic shortcomings. It is absurd that a quarter of the seats in parliament will go to the military. It is absurd to exclude candidates who are married to a foreigner or have children who are foreign nationals. All this testifies to a lack of democratic progress.

What is to be done? I endorse the appeals voiced by previous speakers, especially the measured comments of my colleague Geoffrey van Orden. However, we cannot address the issue of Burma on our own. Without the support of the Chinese, the junta would not survive. That is why the Chinese also have a responsibility for what is happening there. China has moved in to fill the economic vacuum created by the West's sanctions and is reaping the benefits. That is why an approach must be made to China if we want to see any change in the situation in Burma.

I would also like to appeal to my friends in ASEAN. I know that my ASEAN friends regard any comment about Myanmar as interference in their domestic affairs, but I am also aware that the situation in Myanmar makes them uneasy. My message to them is that Myanmar is blighting ASEAN's image in the world, so ASEAN too must bring pressure to bear.

  Richard Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, I welcome the statements of the Council and of the Commission this afternoon, but with 700 political prisoners detained following last year’s demonstrations and General Than Shwe having refused to meet UN Special Envoy Gambari, renewing our common position six months later is necessary – but it is not enough. Why not extend sanctions to oil and gas, where the regime is making its core funding? If the United States imposes sanctions on finance and banking, denying foreign currency to the regime, why does the European Union not do so? What steps can be taken to enable humanitarian access to eastern Burma, where 3 000 villages are reported razed to the ground and where European aid agencies are ready to act? Buddhist monks have written ‘no’ on their monastery walls to send their message to Burmese civilians for the constitutional referendum in May. Europe’s message to Burma must also be a resounding ‘no’ to dictatorship and ‘yes’ to democracy.

  Pierre Schapira (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, it is now six months since the demonstrations in Rangoon revealed to the world the serious human rights violations taking place on a regular basis in Burma.

It seems, unfortunately, that international public opinion has already forgotten about this country in crisis. The reality is that we must provide unfailing support for the people of Burma and adopt a coherent long-term strategy to guarantee, finally, respect for democracy, for the freedom of the press and for the freedom of religion, expression and association.

In spite of the diplomatic pressure, in spite of the exemplary action of Aung San Suu Kyi, who, I must remind you, was awarded the Sakharov Prize in 1990, and in spite of the efforts of international civil society, the situation has not improved: because they do not have the right to vote, 400 000 Buddhist monks will not be able to take part in the referendum.

This unacceptable situation is proof that the pressure applied to date has been inadequate. The sanctions against the Burmese regime must be extended and must target the political elite rather than the population.

Above all, I hope that the EU’s action will be strengthened. In order to raise awareness among the public, I ask, we ask, that Aung San Suu Kyi – who embodies this fight – be given the freedom of all the European capitals, thereby demonstrating our determination to see to it that human rights and freedom in Burma are promoted effectively.

  Katrin Saks (PSE). – (ET) When I enter the Parliament building in Brussels in the mornings, Aung San Suu Kyi looks down at me with her sad eyes from a great placard and I must confess that every morning I feel embarrassingly powerless.

The resolutions which we have adopted almost unanimously have had no effect whatever. Today when I heard both the Commission and the Council representatives speaking here I noticed the rhetoric: ‘We hope, we wish, we consider, we are concerned’. Is this not too demure an attitude to take in respect of a regime like this? We must clearly speak with one voice, and do so much more forcefully.

How do we move forward? We always come back to economic sanctions. In my view this is clearly, however, the only way to influence this regime; we must of course monitor very carefully where our development aid goes. Our money must be conditional upon very specific reforms in this society.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – Mr President, I have been in Burma and seen the misery and the oppression under which the Burmese people live. Disgracefully, Europe has not done enough to help the Burmese – their courageous monks, their political prisoners, their brave leader Aung San Suu Kyi – to get freedom and to get rid of the junta oppressors.

Europe has not done enough to mobilise influential neighbours such as Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and especially Indonesia to come in support for those who fight for human rights and democracy in Burma.

Europe has not done enough to press China and India to stop supporting in one way or another the Burmese oppressors. Europe has not done enough to prevent and punish European companies such as the French Total who keep doing business in Burma, thus helping pay the drug mafia and the oppressors who form the Burmese junta. Europe must act now and refuse to accept the farce of a referendum.

Mr Barroso and his Commissioners heading to Beijing today must talk firmly and clearly about Burma and Beijing’s responsibilities and its sad state. The current and the next Council presidency must act decisively to make a difference for the people of Burma, namely by strictly implementing the sanctions decided and by pushing the UN Security Council to act against the Burmese oppressors.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, this House is becoming habitual in passing resolutions, resolutions which are totally ineffective to a very large extent. Also, we are used to applying sanctions, which are also totally ineffective, because they are not directed at those who are responsible for really changing things, but are, as in this case, directed at the ordinary people of Burma, whose lives we are making even more miserable.

It has already been mentioned that the real culprit in this case is China. Are we directing any sanctions against China? No! The EU market is flooded with defective goods that we are purchasing from China. Why are we not applying any sanctions to China in order to see how that affects the situation in Burma?

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I agree with my colleagues on this matter. It is not only a case of there being no change over the last number of months, but of there being no change for 50 years.

There are breaches of human rights on a daily basis. Religious communities do not come onto the streets unless they believe that there is something radically wrong with a country. We saw that a number of months ago, when the monks came onto the streets, because they felt that they could get their message across. The reaction of the junta was otherwise: it made sure that their protests on the streets were immediately stopped and quelled, and the murders that occurred immediately thereafter are outrageous. And this government has continued to remain in power.

The main culprits here are the companies and the countries that deal with Burma: those that are supplying arms and buying its products. I agree with my colleagues that we should be more proactive in forcing China to take a very different course of action in dealing with Burma. That is the only way we can get change. We also need to take action and talk to those European companies that are helping this junta. Unless we take action ourselves, it is going to be very difficult for us to force change on other countries. I support this motion for a resolution.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, Burma is one of those issues which quite properly generates considerable input into MEPs’ mailboxes.

I see parallels between Burma and Zimbabwe. Both were once thriving economies. Both then turned from democracy to oppression and all that goes with it: the denial of basic freedoms, extreme poverty and oppressive militarism.

But I also see a parallel in the EU’s response to both Burma and Zimbabwe. Both, frankly, are far too timid in that regard. We heard from the Commission and the Council today, but what really had they got to say to us? Very, very little.

I say we must be much more robust. We must step up the economic and the other sanctions and we must put in place a proper and total arms embargo. We must apply pressure where maybe it will have the most effect: on those regimes, those sympathisers, like China, who are propping up this junta. Only then, particularly when we deal with those who have an attitude of ambivalence to the military junta, can it change.

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) I have already mentioned that at its next session the General Affairs and External Relations Council will debate the question of Burma and is likely to adopt some conclusions. I will address this matter later, but first I would like to respond to some comments.

Firstly, Mr Cappato. I would like to stress that so far the Council has not at any time debated the possibility of inviting the Dalai Lama to a meeting with the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Nor do I believe that such a meeting could ever happen. If it did happen, it would revolve around Tibet and not Burma, which is the topic of debate at this moment. However, I would like to say this: What is needed to improve the situation in Tibet is not so much a dialogue between the European Union and the Dalai Lama, but more a dialogue between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama. The Slovenian Presidency has already called for that several times.

Now something about the next session of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. We expect the Council to reach conclusions and decide that it will reiterate its deep concern about the situation in Burma and call on the Burmese authorities to act urgently to bring about a transition to legitimate civilian rule and national reconciliation. We also expect the Council to call for an open debate on the referendum, which should be conducted freely and fairly. In addition, as Mrs Flautre mentioned, we expect the Burmese authorities to invite international monitors to oversee the referendum.

I am in no doubt that the Council will call for the immediate release of all political detainees, as pointed out by Mr Howitt. Nor do I doubt that at the same time it will appeal for the release of Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi. We also expect sanctions, which, as Mr Van Orden correctly remarked, are due to end, to be extended for a further 12 months with the possibility of modifying them, that is to say tightening or relaxing them, at any given time according to the situation.

As regards weapons, and in response to Mr Romagnoli, the European Union has prohibited the export of any kind of weapons or associated materials to Burma. That is part of the European Union’s sanctions and we expect that to be extended together with the sanction system or mechanism. We are trying to get other Member States to join us in this.

Finally, I should add that one could say, as Mrs Flautre said, that the United Nations’ strategy towards Burma has failed. However, one could also say that it has not yet borne fruit. My inclination is towards the latter.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I have listened carefully to all the comments, which reflect the fact that Burma still has a long way to go before it finds the road to democracy, and we are all too aware of that. We must continue to strengthen our policy, and in this regard I would like to point out that we recently stepped up the sanctions targeting the regime and the leaders in particular. The Council is currently looking into the possibility of broader financial sanctions.

I would add that, as far as the political prisoners are concerned, the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 29 April will be an opportunity to send a message to the regime once again to ask it to put an end to the intimidation and imprisonment. We are extremely committed to maintaining solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi. I should point out that we cannot contact her directly but we are in contact with members of her party.

Over and above the sanctions, some of you obviously mentioned cooperation with neighbouring countries, which must help us to influence the Burmese regime, and Mrs Ferrero-Waldner will raise the Burmese issue in China this week. The Commission has also made approaches to the Thai Government while Indonesia appears to be preparing a new initiative. However, you are entirely right to emphasise the importance of action by the other countries in the region.

I now come to the problem of assisting the population. The Burmese people must not pay the price for the political stagnation the leaders have brought about in the country. As far as Europe is concerned, condemnation and the simple isolation of Myanmar are not enough. I want to point out that when providing assistance we endeavour to take every opportunity to stress that it is only through better governance by the regime that this assistance will be as effective as we hope.

Mr Cappato, in particular, expressed concern about the way in which the international aid is monitored. I must point out that the international aid is provided via the UN agencies and NGO partners, and I can tell you that we monitor it very closely. However, you were right to raise this issue.

Therefore, I believe that what we want is to apply as much pressure as possible to ensure that Burma moves towards democracy at a faster pace. At the same time, we must see to it that the people of Burma do not have to suffer even more as a result of total isolation, as this would probably not be the appropriate response.

  President. − To conclude the debate I have received six motions for a resolution⁽¹⁾ pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 24 April 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. – I sincerely welcome this resolution which demonstrates Parliament's continued concern with the situation in Burma. We have a responsibility to ensure that events in this country do not 'fall off the radar'.

It is a well known fact that despite plentiful resources and fertile land, Burma remains one of world's poorest countries. It is also widely accepted that the military junta are responsible for a catalogue of human rights abuses, including the brutal treatment of Buddhist monks who protested against the regime.

In light of recent developments, notably the military junta's intention to force through a wholly undemocratic and illegitimate constitution, it is high time that the European Union exercises all its influence in order to attempt to improve the situation.

The time for simply debating the situation in Burma within the international arena is over. Negotiations between the UN and the Burmese authorities have proved to be entirely ineffective. Targeted sanctions on the junta and businesses connected to it are now urgently required.

I fully support this resolution which calls on Council to put into force broader and tougher sanctions on the Burmese military regime. In this regard, I sincerely hope that our words are followed by actions.

(1) See Minutes.

10. Illegal immigration, external action of the European Union and Frontex (debate)

  President. − The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on illegal immigration, external action of the European Union and Frontex.

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) By way of introduction I would like to emphasise that the challenge of immigration requires a comprehensive approach. The European Union must develop an effective migration policy and legislation and at the same time continue its efforts to combat illegal immigration. We need measures at European Union level as well as at the level of the Member States and we need the cooperation of third countries. One of the most important aspects of the struggle against illegal immigration is effective control of the European Union’s external borders.

A great achievement in this field is without doubt the recent inclusion of nine Member States in the Schengen area. Following their entry into the Schengen area, the Slovenian Presidency started work on the introduction of the second generation Schengen information system, known as SIS II, as soon as possible. This is one of the European Union’s priority projects at the present time. All the necessary activities should be carried out in a way that would facilitate completion of the transition from the first generation of the Schengen information system to the second generation by September 2009 at the latest.

Because of frequent incidents in the Mediterranean Sea and on the North African coast, the Commission and some Member States proposed some initiatives, in 2007, for improving the management of illegal immigration. As part of those efforts, in March of this year the Slovenian Presidency hosted a conference at Ministerial level on the future challenges for management of the European Union’s external borders. The three reports presented by the Commission in February were debated for the first time at the conference. The participants at the conference debated the evaluation and further development of the Frontex agency, as well as further measures for the management of the European Union’s external borders. It was agreed that, in future, border controls should be strengthened and the reliable identification of individuals should be facilitated. At the same time we must strive to make the European Union open and accessible.

In addition, Ministers discussed the proposal to establish a European border surveillance system, or EUROSUR. The Presidency is already preparing further guidelines on this subject and the Council will debate them as part of judicial and internal affairs at its June session.

The fight against illegal immigration will also be made more effective by a directive on common standards and procedures for returning persons who reside illegally in the territory of the European Union Member States, or so-called Return Directive. The Presidency has already begun the second round of negotiations with the European Parliament, which was very constructive. We think that, with a joint effort, we could adopt this directive at the first reading.

Regarding the directive’s proposal concerning sanctions against employers of citizens from third countries who are illegally in the European Union, the Council is waiting for a proposal for changes and amendments from the European Parliament.

Another constituent part of the development of a comprehensive migration policy is a visa policy. In this matter the Slovenian Presidency has achieved progress by discussing two very important dossiers, more precisely the changes to common consular instructions and the visa code. In further work on both dossiers we are looking forward to creative cooperation with the European Parliament.

At the informal January session the Council debated asylum issues and practical cooperation among the Member States. This month the Council adopted appropriate decisions. As I said in my introduction, a comprehensive view of migration policy is necessary to manage and fight illegal immigration. Combating illegal immigration also requires cooperation with the countries of origin and transit. It additionally requires elimination of the reasons for migration, that is to say the stimulation of development in the countries of origin.

The purpose of the global approach adopted by the European Council in December 2005 was to initiate a comprehensive discussion on migration policy, as well as strengthen and deepen international cooperation primarily with the countries of origin and transit, and establish a partnership with those countries. Many activities are taking place right now within this global approach. They are focused mainly on the most critical regions, particularly Africa and the eastern and south-eastern regions bordering the European Union.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, the main factor that attracts illegal immigrants today is illegal work.

Migrants will continue to come to Europe as long as they believe that the financial benefits they can gain from working illegally outweigh the risks of being arrested by European law enforcement bodies.

We need a common will at European level to implement an effective strategy against illegal work. That is the key to this strategy and it depends on us, on the Member States and on our common political will. This is the context surrounding the Commission proposal on sanctions for those who employ third-country nationals residing illegally in the European Union, which is currently being examined by this Parliament and by the Council.

This proposal seeks to ensure that all the Member States adopt preventive measures and similar sanctions and actually apply them in the fight against illegal work.

I would like to encourage Parliament to continue its examination of this proposal so that we can establish a Community instrument that requires the Member States to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the rule of law is respected throughout the European Union.

Having said that, I do not want to underestimate the challenges posed by illegal immigration across the European Union’s external borders. It is very likely that this year, too, many people from the African continent will be tempted to come to the EU by sea: some will come individually, some will come in small groups and others will be exploited by criminal organisations demanding large sums of money to bring them to Europe.

Considerable efforts have been made at European level to provide the Member States with the financial support needed in 2008. The budget of the Frontex agency has practically doubled in 2008 compared with 2007. This year it totals EUR 70 million, including more than EUR 31 million for operations at the EU’s maritime borders.

As regards the operations in these high-risk zones, Frontex has organised four large-scale operations: Poseidon, Hermes, Nautilus and Hera. The information on their exact dates and duration is not yet in the public domain but, thanks to the increase in funding, they will last longer than they did in 2007.

It is also important to point out that an agreement has been reached between the Member States and Frontex on the procedures and conditions for using the technical equipment contained in the Central Record of Available Technical Equipment (CRATE) database.

At present, 18 aircraft, 20 helicopters and 105 vessels are made available by the Member States on a voluntary basis. For its part, Frontex provides the human resources needed to help the Member States to prepare and evaluate the maritime operations. In its evaluation report on Frontex, the Commission recommended that the potential of CRATE and the commitments made by the Member States should be exploited to the full to ensure the availability of the necessary equipment for sea border operations.

The Frontex agency must report regularly to the European institutions on the actual use made of the equipment and the extent to which this use is adequate in relation to the needs, and it must inform them about a future mechanism to ensure the availability of the equipment offered by the Member States. The agency could also increase the potential of CRATE by acquiring or leasing its own technical equipment.

Through these efforts, the Member States and Frontex will help to reduce, as far as possible, the disappearance at sea of those who to reach Europe in makeshift vessels. As a result, the Commission welcomes the bilateral agreement between Spain and the West African states, as well as the contacts between Italy and Malta and Libya. To date, the contacts with Libya have not had the desired result; all the more reason to pursue them.

In its report on the future development of Frontex, the Commission emphasised that cooperation with third countries is a key element in improving the joint operations carried out by the agency in the long term. As such, consideration should be given to whether Frontex should have the possibility of carrying out pilot projects with third countries as beneficiaries. Of course, the agency must ensure coherence between its activities and the overall framework of the Union’s external policy.

Such projects could significantly strengthen the impact of cooperation launched under the current working arrangements, where the latter can serve to identify concrete needs for capacity building with regard to border management in specific third countries.

Finally, the Commission sees 2008 as a test year. Frontex has a larger overall budget, the CRATE database is fully operational and the rapid intervention teams are in place. We will of course evaluate the results of these measures and, where necessary, it may be appropriate to explore other options, such as the establishment of a European border surveillance system, as indicated in the Commission’s evaluation report.

That is the information I wanted to pass on to you today and I look forward to listening to the comments here in this House concerning these difficult problems.

  Simon Busuttil, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (MT) At this time of year we start to hear of tragedies in which hundreds of migrants have drowned and since we well know what happens, it is good to ask whether we are better prepared this year to meet the challenge of illegal migration. Frontex is only part of the solution – it is a deterrent, as the Commission said, in the fight against illegal migration, and this year will be a trial year for Frontex. As Commissioner Barrot rightly said, this year we have doubled Frontex’s budget, we have given it a rapid intervention team and it also appears that it has enough means to carry out its missions. Therefore, we will be monitoring Frontex’s work closely and we hope that this year it will be more effective than it has been so far. If Frontex wants this Parliament’s support it has to show that it deserves our support.

Mr President, as I said, Frontex is but part of this solution; whether or not we want this solution, there also need to be serious discussion about how the burden will be shared between the Member States – discussion that so far the Council has evaded. We need to remove the hypocrisy whereby on the one hand we are scandalised when emigrants drown and on the other hand we leave the southern Member States to bear the burden by themselves. In the Mediterranean, the need to share the burden could not be clearer. Last year we already had incidents where emigrants found in Libya’s rescue zone were capsized or hanging onto tuna nets. Libya did nothing, while the European countries stood around pointing the finger at one another. I would like to ask the Commission and the Council what they are going to do this year – there is no doubt, Commissioner, President-in-Office, there is no doubt that we all have a duty to save people’s lives. However, the time has come for both the Commission and the Council to have the courage to reply to these questions. Is there a single country that is obliged to take in emigrants or should they be shared between everyone?

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROTHE
Vice-President

  Claudio Fava, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks go to you, Madam President, Mr President of the Council and Commissioner. We welcome the Council President's proposal of an integrated approach to immigration. This attempt to combine the various aspects of the problem and handle them together has to begin with the acknowledgement of a fact known to us all: 60% of migrants arriving in Europe come by sea, and ‘Fortress Europe’ has issued an approximate estimate, by default, that 12 000 human beings have drowned or otherwise gone missing over the past ten years. The Mediterranean has become the largest open-air common grave anywhere.

In my opinion, even though Frontex was not established for humanitarian reasons, it cannot be dissociated from this context; it cannot be dissociated from the fact that we are facing a major humanitarian problem. Where do the difficulties and ambiguities of this project lie? The Member States have until now interpreted Frontex as serving to lessen their own responsibilities, and yet it is a coordinating agency based on a spirit of solidarity and reciprocity which cannot operate in isolation from the Member States. Indeed, the Member States are primarily responsible for managing both land and sea borders.

Another significant point is that Frontex has not so far been adequately resourced; now that we hear it is to have funds, structures, men and practical resources at its disposal, we shall need to verify their operational reliability. It is not enough simply to list vessels and helicopters: we need to see how this stock of resources and tools can in actual fact be put at the service of the Agency.

My third point is that Frontex has still not solved one problem which you, Commissioner, raised when you said that we should contribute to bringing down the number of dead and missing persons. How can Frontex undertake to do this? We believe that there is only one way: by ensuring that its remit includes sea rescue operations. In other words, besides the rules governing immigration into the European Union, maritime law, humanitarian law, should also be included, setting out the need to save every human life whenever there is an imminent risk of lives being lost.

That is the message we leave you with, Commissioner, and those are a few points on which we should like some clarification from you and from the Council.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, let us be frank and open: as Frontex is a coordinating agency, we cannot expect it to stop the influx of irregular migrants in itself and of itself, nor to put an end to the trafficking in human beings. Frontex is not, and never will be, a panacea to all the problems caused by irregular migration.

At the very end it is simple: EU border security is the ultimate responsibility of all Member States, and border controls must be operated in a spirit of sharing responsibilities and solidarity between Member States.

Over the past years, we have been facing a genuine paradox. One could hear Member States inviting Frontex to stop the flow of irregular migrants immediately and to deploy as much equipment as possible. However, the centralised record of available technical equipment, as you know, is just a virtual record. The assets on this list belong to the Member States and they are subject to their will to deploy them. Clearly, we could debate the will of a number of Member States.

As for the financial perspective, if Frontex were to deploy all the equipment at once, its budget would evaporate immediately. Therefore, the main question still to be answered – and I am addressing the Council – is whether the Council is ready to extend the principle of compulsory solidarity, obliging all Member States to deliver, i.e. a mandatory solidarity mechanism.

Over the past years, Member States have repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of ensuring full respect for international human rights obligations in managing migration. Member States underlined the importance of European solidarity in burden-sharing as the founding principles. Yet, too often, effective decision-making is hamstrung by the inability of these Member States to work together in their mutual interest.

Would the President-in-Office agree that the time for words is passed and the time for action has come? Would you not agree that in a world marked by increasing regional conflicts and a growing gap between rich and poor, mobility will increase rather than diminish? Is it not high time that the Member States put themselves in a position to respond to that challenge with a radical, yet responsible, revision of their views on what is supposed to be a comprehensive package on a common – and I repeat, common – migration policy?

Unfortunately, I have to leave the Chamber now, as I am taking part in the ongoing high-level trialogue on the Return Directive. However, I look forward to receiving your detailed reply at your earliest convenience.

  Mario Borghezio, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Frontex initiative deserves support. It represents the boundary of European civilisation in the face of an onslaught of illegal immigration which is deliberate, very often entails highly distressing humanitarian tragedies and represents big business for Mafia-type criminal organisations. That is why it must be countered as energetically as possible.

We believe that some very effective measures have been adopted by countries like Spain, whose SIVE system has erected a highly sophisticated high-tech wall against illegal immigrants. There is no point crying crocodile tears over deaths and humanitarian incidents when we do nothing to defend our coastline. My own country did nothing for a long time - one need only think about the Lampedusa situation – but all we have to do is prevent the vessels carrying illegal immigrants from reaching Member States' territorial waters.

As for the legal state of affairs, the reasons still being put forward against making illegal immigration a crime are utterly unfounded: the arrest and detention of illegal immigrants are fully covered by Article 5(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which clearly states that one exception to the prohibition on depriving people of their liberty concerns people effecting an unauthorised entry into another country.

Finally, Europe cannot shirk from examining the results of full implementation of the Schengen Agreement, which are in front of our eyes. Schengen was supposed to promote freedom of movement for workers and students but has in actual fact created a kind of green card for the free movement of criminals. Is that what we want on our land? Certainly not. We therefore need to take urgent action: the 2004 Directive must be revised in the light of these results.

The Member States were supposed to establish income thresholds and an obligation on anyone entering our countries to demonstrate that their funds are legal. They have not done so - Italy, for example has not - and so we find cities, such as the capital of Christianity, invaded by Roma and Romanians who commit crime, rape and other unlawful acts but are not thrown out. Let us give due consideration to these results.

  Cem Özdemir, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, since the establishment of the European border security agency, Frontex, the implementation of the European work programmes has been proceeding effectively and according to plan. Nonetheless, my Group has been extremely concerned, since the adoption of the Frontex Regulation, about the serious incidents in the Mediterranean area, in which people who have set out in search of a better life often lose their lives in the attempt.

We therefore have some questions which we would like to put to the Council. One of these questions is this: has Frontex fully incorporated human rights obligations into its existing regulatory provisions and practices? Or, to be a little more precise and candid: can the Council and Commission guarantee that the EU Member States which receive the support of Frontex are meeting all of their obligations under international law and the international convention in relation to the security and monitoring of their external borders?

The published statistics from Frontex relate solely to the number of migrants who have been prevented from entering the European Union. There are no statistics concerning the number of asylum seekers apprehended, and nor is it clear how they have been treated. We would like to know whether there are any statistics on the number of asylum seekers apprehended. If so, why have these figures not yet been made public?

Finally, if an asylum seeker is apprehended, what role does Frontex play in relation to the coordination of the asylum application? Where are these applications examined? Which mechanisms are in place to guarantee that an application is thoroughly examined before the asylum seeker is sent back?

  Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, the European Union and its institutions always claim that the struggle for human rights is of key importance. However, this does not seem to apply to the EU's own Frontex agency and the policy behind it. The EU wants to use Frontex to ward off people coming in from outside; it does not want to save lives.

Aid organisations believe that more refugees are dying since Frontex was established as they now have to travel further. Frontex is militarising the EU's system of repelling refugees. The question is this: why do the refugees want to come in the first place? This has a great deal to do with the prosperity gap, and something needs to be done. Climate change will exacerbate the situation, with even more refugees attempting the journey to Europe.

Frontex is exempt from all parliamentary control. I recall a hearing organised by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, when the Executive Director of Frontex did not consider it necessary to turn up. The EU's strategy is clearly to 'cherry-pick' the best of the migrants and refugees and keep the rest at bay, using Frontex, among other things. Overall, Frontex is worsening the situation of refugees. My Group's position is therefore very clear: Frontex must be dissolved, and instead, more must be done to provide practical help to refugees. That would be the right approach, not ever more isolationism and constant reinforcement of Fortress Europe.

  Georgios Georgiou, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (EL) Madam President, the question of cross-border agreements is not an abstruse matter like reading texts by Lysias or Cicero. On the other hand Frontex will do nothing to solve all the problems we believe there are between Europe and those unfortunate enough to seek refuge there. These poor wretches are Asian victims exploited by neighbouring countries which cooperate with Europe but never see the consequences from a European angle.

Now if there were adverse effects, and Frontex, for example, had both to carry out its rescue function and inform us about where they come from and which states allow this unlawful trade in unfortunate people, who often end up at the bottom of the sea, then the EU would be able to take its own measures against such countries and cut the subsidies lavished on them today.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Mr President, in itself we can of course only welcome the extension of the tasks of Frontex that has been announced, the plans to set up a pan-European border guard and the creation of a centralised European databank. It is also a good sign that Frontex has been given the green light to open negotiations on cooperation agreements with a number of departure or transit countries to ensure joint action against illegal immigration. On the other hand, this agency naturally stands or falls with the technical assistance and political support of the Member States, which has all too often in the past proved problematic. For instance, France, Germany and the Netherlands have been much more active than Belgium, which only took part in three operations.

All the same, we cannot pin too much faith on the strengthening of external borders and we should certainly not be blinded by the telegenic Frontex operations in the Mediterranean. Most illegal immigrants arrive in Europe legally, but simply disappear into illegality when their visas expire. There are hundreds of thousands of them. From that point of view, the 53 000 arrests that the Commission proposed a few months ago will therefore not do much more than 'cure the symptom'.

The core issue is still that both the European Member States and the European Union are responsible for the uncontrolled and illegal immigration, with all its catastrophic effects on society. I am talking about not only the flexible visa policy and the lax tracing and repatriation policy, but also about the irresponsible waves of regularisation in some Member States, which have been an enormous draw. The extension of Schengen to the east is for the moment the latest of these damaging decisions. You might therefore ask whether Frontex is not just having to act as a lightning conductor to appease the citizens of Europe.

  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Jacques, ladies and gentlemen, we are currently examining very significant texts that should lead to a real change and, dare I say, a real evolution in the management of migratory flows. I am thinking in particular of the return directive, the Blue Card directive, the directive on sanctions against employers and the directive on a common set of rights.

The current legislative work must be completed as quickly as possible if we want effective results that are visible to our fellow citizens and third-country nationals. We have to send a clear message. As parliamentarians we are giving the question of immigration serious attention and dealing with it head-on. We need to look at the management of our external borders and Frontex’s role in that regard. Frontex was not created to recover drowned bodies in southern Europe. It was not created to recover starving children in Eastern Europe, led by their parents on a never-ending voyage of migration. Frontex has a clear mission: to protect our borders in order to protect our fellow citizens.

The Member States must therefore face up to their responsibilities and fulfil their commitments by providing Frontex with all the resources it needs to carry out its missions under the best possible conditions. We have to stop thinking of Frontex as a temporary or isolated measure. It must be able to tackle, and keep up with the pace of, the phenomena that fall within its remit: migration and illegal immigration, organised crime, smugglers, trafficking in all its forms. The Frontex agency must be at the heart of the wider border security project and, in this respect, there must be closer cooperation with the senior authorities responsible for these issues.

As usual, it is the overriding principles and the political will that threaten the smooth running of the agency: each Member State must be reminded of its commitment to the principles of responsibility, solidarity and respect. I hope that the Commission and in particular the Council will take our requests and concerns on board and that they do not ruin the success of an agency that we need at European level.

  Javier Moreno Sánchez (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, as you said, Frontex works. Last year, for example, joint operations reduced the numbers of illegal immigrants arriving in the Canary Islands by 61%. Mafia organisations, however, are investigating new routes in order to foil security operations. Their activities represent the hare, and our responses the tortoise. We all know La Fontaine’s fable, and how it ends: we will win the race, certainly, but how many lives will be lost before that happens?

Ladies and gentlemen, we must be clear and concise with one another and with the general public. Do we really wish to deal with the problem of illegal immigration on a joint basis, or just make it look like we are dealing with it? Frontex offers added value in terms of reducing the number of illegal immigrants, saving lives and combating trafficking in human beings and acts as a considerable deterrent in the areas being monitored.

However, ladies and gentlemen, it is important to go that extra mile and secure an integrated European system to deal with all the EU’s external borders. Frontex needs the appropriate mandates and resources. The Commission’s proposals are heading in the right direction, but we want to know how united and committed the Member States are in the fight against illegal immigration, a phenomenon that affects all of us, not just countries at out southern border.

How do the Member States view the idea of introducing a European Border Surveillance System? Elaborating on Frontex’s operational capacity, how does the Council feel about creating regional centres in sensitive areas, particularly at the southern maritime borders?

Also in relation to the key aspect of border surveillance, what will Frontex’s role be in Iconet and what has the Council’s response been to the proposal to establish EUROSUR?

Finally, I wish to say I agree with you, Commissioner, that cooperation with third countries is a vital component of the fight against illegal immigration. What steps will Frontex take to facilitate the development of the agreements concluded by Member States such as Spain? I think that the answers to questions like these may be the first indication as to how and when we will win the race.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Madam President, Member States have both a right and a duty to control their borders properly, to manage immigration and to cooperate between themselves and through the European Union, whether or not they are in Schengen, which, sadly, my country is not. That means that they must cooperate with Frontex and through Frontex, insofar as they are legally allowed to do so, and must support the so-called RABITS – the mobile border guards – and make sure that Frontex is properly resourced.

But well-managed borders should not mean the inhumane treatment of migrants or negligence of the need to respect refugee law by giving access to an asylum determination procedure. Therefore, we should parallel having mobile border guards by having asylum expert teams, who could be deployed at short notice to deal with large influxes of would-be migrants, and making sure that they individually assess any potential claims.

Frontex cannot be a substitute for a comprehensive migration system – which we still do not have – which covers illegal immigration and legal migration and which has proper legal migration channels, as well as preserving the asylum channel.

Lastly, I am wary of the trend to mix immigration and criminality. The term ‘border security’, which is often used, tends to suggest automatically that immigrants are a threat. Most of them are not. They may not have a legal entitlement to come, but that does not necessarily mean that they are criminals.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Madam President, we see the harshest and most dramatic face of illegal immigration when good weather arrives at the shores of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

Mafia groups operate much more frequently now that there is apparently less risk. That is why this debate is so necessary: to support, facilitate and encourage any initiatives to prevent and neutralise a criminal scourge that puts so many lives in jeopardy and breaches our frontiers with frequent impunity.

External action by the European Union is becoming a vital component within such a context. This is borne out by the Montavia and Cape Verde pilot projects. The House recently allowed the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to take part in this task by authorising two trips to Senegal and Mauritania, prime examples of countries of origin and transit for illegal immigrants.

EU external action on immigration must henceforth be more active and more visible and focus on much more relevant countries, primarily Guinea-Conakry.

Frontex has made good progress in a short period of time. It has funds, EUR 70 million to be precise, and well-designed capacities for coordination, but we need the unambiguous assistance of the Council, for example, to make the CRATE database more than a catalogue of means or a declaration of offers. The problem is persistent and dramatic, and requires us to pursue our efforts and maintain our systems of prevention, assistance and supervision, with resources and staff deployed on a permanent basis and in a timely manner, in the Canary Islands and the Mediterranean.

During the first quarter of the year 1 702 immigrants reached the Canaries, as against 1 425 over the same period of the previous year. Now more immigrants are arriving, but they are using fewer boats. In three years 48 305 immigrants arrived in the Canary Islands. It is true that the numbers fell between 2006 and 2007, from 31 000 to 11 000, but the harsh truth is that increasing numbers of immigrants are arriving at Canary Island ports and every day we find bodies in the Mediterranean, either near the coasts of Oran or the Canaries themselves.

Moreover, Madam President – and I am finishing up now – between 15% and 20% of repatriated immigrants try again. The problem is thus a persistent one. This is why we need more common global willingness and less common rhetoric.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, Madam President of the Council, Malta, Spain, Italy and France are all countries particularly affected by migratory flows, but they are not the only migratory routes.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the European Union’s eastern border and in particular to the borders of my country, Poland. The events of recent months indicate that migratory flows are also passing through that border too, and that human tragedies are taking place there too. I would remind the House that two Chechen children died of exhaustion as they attempted to cross into Poland with their mother. In addition to illegal immigrants from Ukraine and Belarus, Poland’s secure centres for refugees contain inmates from Pakistan, Korea and Vietnam.

Migration, notably illegal migration, is a Union-wide problem, and it is therefore regrettable that the European Union does not have a common approach to illegal migration. The principles applied by Member States regarding asylum and deportation differ widely. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to emphasise that we need a single legal framework. It would then be possible for us to at least treat illegal immigrants in a similar manner across the Union. Clearly, the only alternative to illegal immigration is legal migration, and European Union citizens should not fear the latter. It represents an opportunity for ageing Europe. That is why I welcome the approach taken by the Slovenian Presidency, because I too consider that closer cooperation between customs and border control authorities is required to improve the existing method of managing the Union’s borders.

In addition, Member States must become more heavily involved in joint Frontex actions. They cannot continue to be as selfish as they have been to date, and should instead be more generous when it comes to equipping this important agency. I do not just have experts in mind, but also and most importantly vessels, aircraft and other equipment that will ensure effective protection of the Union’s borders. After all, the lives of many individuals on the seas and in the mountains are at stake, along with our common security.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we are facing a crisis of mass illegal immigration which has consequences for the security and cohesion of the whole European Union. Immigration is a phenomenon of huge dimensions which, particularly in a space without internal borders, requires a European approach.

I therefore support the creation of a European Border Surveillance System, Eurosur, streamlining and interlinking the border control systems of the Member States in order to increase the EU’s internal security, fight illegal immigration, prevent cross-border crime and terrorism, and strengthen the Member States’ capacity for rescue operations.

I also support the central role that Frontex must play in controlling and monitoring the external borders. I agree that Frontex must facilitate the application of current and future Community provisions and also make this application more effective in terms of managing the external borders and ensuring the coordination of Member States’ actions and, in particular, the technical and operational assistance to be provided to Member States requiring this. However, I would warn the Council and the Member States that these objectives will only be achieved if we equip this agency with the necessary human and financial resources, which until very recently was unfortunately not at all the case.

As for the entry/exit system, I believe that we should be more cautious. I am concerned about this succession of proposals on the monitoring of individuals, which are multiplying at an alarming rate. It seems that we are unable to complete what we have already agreed and we are flying forward, without taking care to avoid any overlaps or duplication of functions, to assess the impact of these issues on the fundamental rights of individuals or to establish safeguards where appropriate.

In my opinion, instead of proposing new mechanisms, the Commission should concentrate on making up for the delays that have already occurred and on bringing into operation, as soon as possible, systems such as SIS II (Schengen Information System) and VIS (Visa Information System).

  Katrin Saks (PSE). – (ET) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in a European Union without internal frontiers cooperation and solidarity to protect our external borders is of great importance, as is further improvement in the activity of FRONTEX.

But in addition to immigrants who cross the Mediterranean by boat, of whom much has been said here and of whom we are all undoubtedly aware thanks to the media, there is also a huge problem with people who enter from third countries with visas and who have no intention of departing once their visas expire. These are primarily immigrants from the east.

Here a single visa information system is of great importance, and increasing the responsibility of one nation state or Member State is not enough on this issue. Increasing cooperation between countries is very important.

Furthermore, there has been much talk of a common migration policy. In certain respects this is clearly important. However, certain issues must also remain within the purview of the Member States, for example the issue of quotas, because on matters such as this each country must assess its own scope for integration. Such issues cannot be resolved from above.

  Panayiotis Demetriou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, I do not think it is necessary to repeat what we have just heard from Members who have already spoken. They have anyway covered almost all aspects of the problem, which all think is complex, difficult and very acute.

Let me say here and now about the statements by the Council and the Commission that we must avoid hot air and get down to action. What the EU has to do must be governed three principles. Firstly, the message has to be clear and the problem of immigration has to be recognised not merely as a national problem, but a European one. Secondly, the principle of solidarity must apply here in a practical way. Thirdly, a holistic rather than fragmented policy must be implemented.

We have created Frontex and that is excellent. The Commissioner says that it has been organised, staffed and reinforced with all the necessary resources. Can Frontex solve the problem, however? I have my doubts. My fellow Members have talked about matters such as the reasons for immigration. We certainly need to reinforce Frontex. Above all, however, we need to turn our attention to the Mediterranean states. Land and sea enterprises must be strengthened so that we can at least withstand the massive influx of illegal immigrants. Cyprus is a case in point. It has recently been a targeted by illegal immigrants coming from the Middle East through Turkish-occupied territories. The EU has the ways and means to intervene with Turkey to stop this from happening.

As well as what we have all been discussing, however, there is also one more subject for debate: the issue of human rights, which is an important subject. In order to stop illegal immigration and immigration in general, we cannot allow for human rights to be forfeited. In treating and dealing with immigrants we must apply the human rights principles and values of the EU. This is what I urge the Commission and the Council to do.

  Ioannis Varvitsiotis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, Now that the summer is here and weather conditions are good, particularly in Greece and the Mediterranean, illegal immigration will unfortunately assume major proportions. Illegal immigrants will arrive at both the sea and land borders of Greece. My country is doing its level best. It is taking all possible measures, but they are not sufficient to stem this tide.

Frontex was established five years ago. Are we pleased with its results? I daresay we are, bearing in mind its meagre technical resources and restricted competence. If, however, we want to take a real political decision, then we must strengthen Frontex further with a logistical infrastructure and proper jurisdiction. This is the only way to fulfil our obligations. Finally, we must also establish a coastguard for the sea borders of the Mediterranean.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Madam President, the problem of illegal immigration is a very complex one. It only partly involves the defences around the borders of a country and of the European Union in general.

We have to examine the reasons and the drive that bring these people into Europe. They risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones. They travel for thousands of miles. They endure atrocious conditions but still continue to come. So it is my premise that, even if we build a six-metre wall around the whole of the European frontier, they will still come.

The Commissioner said something else which is very wise. These people come because we need them. There is work for them in our Member States. So why can we not find a system where we can legalise the illegal immigrants? Why can we not find a management system whereby these people can be channelled into our countries through legal and safe means?

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Commissioner, Minister, I believe that it is deeply shocking to suggest that our security is threatened by the starving people who come her to seek work so that they can support the families they have left behind. I would remind my fellow Members of the speech Mr Kofi Annan gave when we awarded him the Sakharov Prize. He asked us to do the exact opposite of what we are doing: he asked us to open our borders. When we look into the future slightly, we can see only too well that we will need these workers because we are going to have a shortage of labour in the European Union.

What are we doing then? We are building walls and we are going to choose who is allowed to enter: we are going to choose the people we need. That is totally unacceptable. We need a different policy; a policy that is open to all these people.

However, what I want to know is what Frontex hopes to do, for example, in the countries of transit? In this respect, I will mention Mauritania, which I am familiar with since the European Union sent me there as the head of the election observation mission. We made a commitment to this poor country to help it with its transition to democracy. It has to manage the flows of immigrants travelling through the country on their way to the Canaries.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are here to discuss Frontex and that is what we should be focusing on. Frontex must of course be viewed in the context of a comprehensive migration strategy which on the one hand manages legal immigration but, on the other, combats illegal immigration.

In this overall context, Frontex is the security instrument on which the campaign against illegal immigration and human smugglers depends, and it is being deployed in those areas where the Member States are finding it difficult to cope. That is why we must ensure that Frontex can indeed evolve into a successful security instrument.

Parliament has managed to achieve a doubling of the budget, with the timescale for joint operations being greatly expanded. I am pleased that the Hera and Nautilus operations have already begun and that Poseidon will start in the next few days. However – and this point is directed at the Council – any operation will only be successful if the Member States put the requisite conditions in place and make the requisite instruments available.

This, then, is my request and my urgent appeal to the Council: please do your utmost to ensure that we do not have the same situation as in previous years, when the Member States dragged their feet. They should understand, at long last, that we need this security instrument and that we are enabling it to function effectively through the requisite supply …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) It was exceptionally interesting to be present at this dynamic debate. I think one thing was clear to everyone during the debate: legal immigration is the kind of immigration which the European Union needs, but the other kind, illegal immigration, should be fought. This was a topic on the agenda of today’s debate.

In any case, the Presidency is among those who believe that illegal immigration is a phenomenon which should be fought because it usually has a criminal background. Behind it is a society of organised crime which is not interested in what has to be endured by the people they are trying to get into the European Union, in this case. I must say that I do not agree with those Members of Parliament who are of the opinion that the Council is trying to avoid these debates. Nor can I agree with those who think that we are still just talking.

The Council is not avoiding this debate. It was the Slovenian Presidency which, in March this year, organised the conference on the future challenges of controlling the European Union’s external borders, and all or most of the issues mentioned in today’s debate were a topic of that conference, which was conducted at Ministerial level. In any case, I agree with Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert that now is the time for action. Her absence is proof that we are taking action. She is attending a very important event, namely the concluding phase of the tripartite discussion on the Return Directive, which is, I hear, proceeding well and may successfully reach its conclusion today.

The Return Directive is an important aspect of the fight against illegal immigration. If it is adopted at the first reading, which is the hope of the Slovenian Presidency and the ambition of the European Parliament, then we will obtain a new lever to help us face up to the phenomenon of illegal immigration more successfully.

The question of solidarity carries a significant political charge regarding the problems of illegal immigration. However, we must appreciate that some elements of solidarity already exist: we had the Schengen resource, or ‘Schengen Facility’, for new Member States, we have Frontex, and the Commissioner has listed important capacities which the Member States have voluntarily contributed to the agency in the name of solidarity.

Therefore I cannot agree that there is no solidarity in the European Union. There is, but there is room for improvement. We must take into account – and I think Mr Fava was among those who pointed it out – that control of the external borders comes under the competence of the Member States. Why? Simply because most of them want it that way. Solidarity therefore has its limits. The majority of Member States want external border control to come under their competence.

Mrs Saks mentioned that the Member States do not want the immigrant quota to be forced on them from outside or from the top. They want to decide these things for themselves. This is the framework in which we are operating and in which the Slovenian Presidency is searching for possible ways forward. I think we have already managed to achieve a number of measures, but we still have to work on others.

I would like to say a few words about reception centres, as initiated by Mr Moreno Sánchez. A very difficult debate on this topic is still taking place. It is a politically sensitive issue and not a simple topic. The Council will be occupied by it for some time to come.

Mr Özdemir raised the question of asylum. Asylum statistics do exist. The asylum system is effective at European Union level. However, we are still trying to improve its efficiency. The first step was the publication of the Green Paper on the future of asylum, presented by the European Commission, and the Council’s decisions on improving practical cooperation, which were adopted at the last session of the Justice and Home Affairs Council.

I would like to end here, although I could say more on this interesting and topical subject. Ladies and gentlemen, let me assure you that your opinions count and that we will bear them in mind when we continue this debate. The Slovenian Presidency is relying on your cooperation to make progress in this dossier.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to get back to the main topic of this debate, Frontex, and clarify a few points. Mr Fava, in particular, wanted to know if the equipment used by Frontex was fully operational.

It is true that Frontex depends on the Member States for the technical equipment needed for the operations it coordinates and, until now, the agency has been satisfied with the way in which the Member States have provided the equipment available in the CRATE database.

Of course, an additional step would be to put in place a compulsory system for the Member States by amending the agency’s basic Regulation. The Commission mentions this in its evaluation report, and the discussions with the Frontex agency and the Member States on this matter will continue. Frontex has concluded technical agreements with most of the Member States on the conditions of use of the equipment. Obviously, it is unable to purchase equipment that is very costly, but in its evaluation report the Commission recommended that Frontex should buy or lease equipment that is frequently used: night vision goggles, small radar equipment, thermal imaging equipment, etc.

I also wanted to say, since Mr Moreno Sánchez raised these points in particular, that there are some places that are particularly at risk, and perhaps we could envisage setting up permanent operational centres in such cases. Frontex is currently looking into this.

There are many other questions and I apologise for not mentioning all the Members although I took precise notes.

Many of you asked about Frontex’s ability at present to assist people whose boats have been shipwrecked. It important to remember that it is the Member States that are responsible for looking after or saving those involved in such accidents: Frontex has no mandate in this area. Having said that, I believe that it is true to say that numerous lives have fortunately been saved as a result of the operations coordinated by Frontex. More and more people must be saved because what we have realised from these terrible shipwrecks of poor people, who have often also been exploited, is that this is a major concern in these operations.

I would briefly like to reiterate what the President and the Minister have just said, and Mr Gaubert too: when it comes down to it, Europe has to begin to manage migratory flows, and migratory flows cannot be managed effectively without Frontex, without surveillance of our external borders. There is no doubt that we need a legal framework that will gradually allow Europe to provide a truly European response to all these migratory problems. I must say, too, that one of the major tasks awaiting my attention is the preparation of a new communication on this overall approach to migration, which should take into account all the aspects that you have raised.

I would add that a migration policy cannot succeed in the absence of close cooperation with the countries or origin and, indeed, what has been said on this subject is that all efforts are welcome to strengthen this cooperation with the countries in question.

Minister, you pointed out just a moment ago that the trialogue on the ‘return’ text seems to be progressing. It is also one of the cornerstones of this overall immigration policy, which must of course be an overall policy, but which must also be a united policy, too: solidarity is crucial. There has been much mention this evening of rescues at sea, but we must not forget Europe’s borders to the east.

Evidently – and I will finish with this point – the treatment of illegal immigrants must respect fundamental rights, to which Europe is firmly committed. All of this means that we need a genuine overall approach, an approach that is human but is at the same time extremely serious and rigorous. This is essential if we do not want Europe to be a fortress and if we want it to be open, but open within the framework of rules that we believe to be reasonable, that respect individuals and, at the same time, that focus on ensuring that the integration efforts succeed in the various Member States, for the immigration policy cannot succeed without integration.

That is all I wanted to say and I apologise to the Members for not having responded to all the questions raised. Please be assured that I am willing to listen to Parliament in order to try to lay the foundations for this overall immigration policy.

  President. − The debate is closed.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union’s external borders, either land or sea borders, protect all Member States from possible threats caused by illegal immigration, trafficking and organized crime.

The instruments proposed by the European Commission in the development of the Frontex Agency, namely state-of-the-art border surveillance systems, technical equipment and rapid intervention teams, are undoubtedly opportune.

Nevertheless, the effort of strengthening borders should be a joint European effort and not a single effort of the countries situated along the borders. Moreover, it is necessary to take action not only on the European Union borders, but also on the borders of the countries neighbouring the European Union.

I remind you of the fact that political stability, the development of democracy, economy and increase in the living standard in third countries bordering the European Union will considerably diminish the pressure on the borders; for this reason, cooperation with the relevant authorities of these countries represents a major priority.

The projects submitted by the Commission need adequate financing urgently, so that they can be implemented as soon as possible.

11. European strategies on biological diversity (COP 9) and biosafety (COP-MOP 4) (debate)

  President. − The next item is

– the oral question by Miroslav Ouzký, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, to the Commission: on the Commission's strategy for the ninth ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 9) and the fourth meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP-MOP 4) (O-0023/2008 - B6-0017/2008);

– the oral question by Miroslav Ouzký, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, to the Council: on the Council's strategy for the ninth ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 9) and the fourth meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP-MOP 4) (O-0022/2008 - B6-0016/2008).

  Miroslav Ouzký, author. − (CS) Madam President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, first of all I would like to mention something that has nothing to do with my question, to express a complaint. While the police in all countries make sure, as part of their duties, that politicians or members of parliaments can carry out their work, the French police tries to prevent the Members of the European Parliament from working. At the entrance to this institution a policeman banned me from entering, even after having seen my permit, allegedly in order to protect a demonstration taking place outside the entrance to Parliament. I think that this is scandalous and I hope that this matter will be debated in Parliament. Of course this is not relevant to my question but let me tell you that I would not be speaking here now had I not run around to another part of the building.

I was entitled, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, to put a question to both the Council and the Commission concerning the forthcoming meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and Biosafety in Bonn. The basic question, both for the Council and the Commission, concerns clarification of the objectives for this Conference. We also want to know whether the Council and the Commission are planning to involve the Members of the European Parliament in the Conference. I must say that our committee wants more than resolutions and individual agreements to be adopted: it wants to know how they are executed and implemented, i.e. how they are put into practice.

I want to ask whether the European Union and the European institutions understand their leading role in this area, in the fight against the loss of biodiversity. If we want to be a leading force, we should make it absolutely clear. I want to ask whether we understand that financing all these programmes and decisions is a vital necessity and that they cannot be implemented without proper financial support. I also hope that both the Commission and the Council understand the impact of water scarcity in the Mediterranean region, and the impact of droughts and climate change on biodiversity as such.

The committee would like to hear whether special attention will be paid to marine and coastal biodiversity and whether the Commission and the Council understand the importance of involving regional and local governments as well as businesses in this matter, in the fight against the loss of biodiversity. It would like to hear whether we understand the importance of sustainable forest management and crop production, with special emphasis on the sustainable production of biofuels, which is becoming a very hot topic. As you know, biofuel production is part of the climate package we are debating now, and the sustainable use and development of biofuels are very important issues. On the other hand, we know that it has a very negative impact on biodiversity.

  President. − Thank you. I will pass on your complaint, and then perhaps you will be contacted about the matter.

  Janez Podobnik, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) Allow me to thank the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and its Chairman, Mr Ouzký, for his oral question to me, the Council and the Commission. With this question you are placing great importance on the very sensitive problem of biodiversity.

Together with climate change, biodiversity is the Presidency’s main priority among environmental tasks. The ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 9), which will take place in Bonn in May, is therefore an important event for the European Union in general, as well as for the Slovenian Presidency.

Within the framework of the 18-month programme of the German, Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies, the Council has made intensive preparations to make this important meeting successful in terms of better protection and sustainable utilisation of biodiversity at the global level. The Council has pointed out that the European Union is committed to fulfilling the global aim within which it intends significantly to slow down the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. It is also committed to achieving the EU target of stopping the decrease in biodiversity in Europe by 2010. Therefore my answer to your question is: yes, the European Union wants to and must preserve its role as world leader in this field.

The Council has stressed that the European Union strives to take an active and constructive role and that, at the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in May, it will strive for far-reaching but realistic outcomes of the meeting. The Council has also stated that, to achieve the global biodiversity target by 2010, it is urgently necessary to persist with further concrete measures at all levels.

We must implement the Convention at national and EU levels. The European Union has made a political commitment to reach all three targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, that is to say protection and sustainability of use of biodiversity, access to genetic resources, and the sharing of benefits arising from their use.

The decisions defining the European Union’s priority tasks for the ninth Conference of the Parties were first adopted by the Council in June of last year and then again in March of this year. Allow me to list some of the priority tasks. We need to emphasise the importance of accelerated implementation of all the work programmes of the Convention on Biological Diversity and improve the synergy between climate change policies and biodiversity in order to obtain as many common benefits as possible. The Council keeps pointing out the necessity for cohesion at all levels in the implementation of international agreements on the environment.

We must emphasise that it is important for the ninth Conference to discuss the problem of production, trade and use of biofuels and biomass and their effect on biodiversity and on ecosystem services. In this respect it is even more important clearly to determine sustainable criteria for biofuel production. We should stress the importance of implementing the programme for forest biodiversity and reduction of deforestation and degradation of forest ecosystems. The Council underlines the importance of forests in the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change and in the preservation of biodiversity.

We must ensure fast and comprehensive implementation of the work programme for protected regions. Within this framework we must provide technical and financial support – you asked about financing – that is to say financial support to establish protected regions throughout the world. The ninth meeting should adopt ecological criteria to determine marine regions in the open sea that need protection. It is important to emphasise the role of the private sector, especially small and medium-sized companies, in implementing the Convention.

Lastly, the European Union has firmly decided to continue its active involvement in planning and negotiating the international procedure for access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising from their use. The European Union will strive to conclude negotiations before the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention.

To conclude, more than 20 different topics will be discussed at the meeting. I have only talked about those which the Council considers to be of crucial importance for achieving the targets of the Convention, especially the 2010 biodiversity target. This will be the last meeting before the 2010 deadline, so it will be a cut-off date for the adoption of concrete measures. Because this meeting will take place in Europe, it is of even greater importance for the European Union to promote its priorities and endeavours.

I have also familiarised myself with your proposal for the resolution on which you will be voting in the European Parliament tomorrow. In our opinion the resolution is a good summary of the main priorities and targets to be achieved by the European Union in Bonn.

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Ouzký for this very important question. I think we all noticed how, in 2007, environmental issues rose to the top of the political agenda. Climate change grabbed the headlines and popular imagination.

But the loss of biodiversity is a global threat that needs to be faced with the same urgency, and they are linked. Climate change and biodiversity are linked. A failure to recognise this relationship may undermine our efforts for improvements in both areas.

How do we halt the loss of biodiversity? Well, I believe that Europe made some progress in this area by implementing the activities covered by the communication of 2006 from the Commission ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond’. However, more efforts are needed. In particular we need a stronger buy-in of sectors other than nature conservation, such as agriculture, fisheries and energy.

Effective international cooperation is also essential and we are firmly committed to working through the Convention on Biological Diversity to protect global diversity worldwide.

The ninth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which will be held back-to-back with the fourth meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, offers a remarkable opportunity to step up the protection of biodiversity and, since these meetings will be hosted and chaired by Germany, Europe has a particular role. We will push for the acceleration of international efforts towards achieving the global target of significantly reducing biodiversity loss by 2010.

At the beginning of March, the Council adopted conclusions that set up the broad political mandate and the main priorities for the EU at these meetings. They can be summarised in seven points.

First, we want to agree on new commitments to enhance implementation, in particular as regards the execution of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s programmes on protected areas and forest biodiversity.

Secondly, we want to ensure that climate change adaptation and mitigation measures also support the 2010 biodiversity target. The decisions to be taken in Bonn should contribute to the post-Bali debate on reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

Thirdly, we will promote the adoption of criteria for the identification of vulnerable marine areas to be protected. In addition, we also intend to commit all the contracting parties in terms of how to apply these criteria.

Fourthly, we want to develop international guidance for promoting biodiversity-friendly ways of enhancing the production and consumption of biomass, including biofuels.

Fifthly, we aim to identify the main components of an international regime on access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising from their use.

Sixthly, we want an agreement on the establishment of an international mechanism on scientific expertise on biodiversity.

And seventhly, and finally, we will promote a decision in the field of liability and redress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified organisms.

So the Commission always facilitates the inclusion of Members of Parliament in Community delegations negotiating multilateral agreements. I have, myself, very positive experience of doing this. I welcome the participation of Members of the European Parliament at COP 9 and MOP 4, as they are called in the language we use in this context. I am, of course, interested in hearing your priorities and expectations for these meetings.

  Pilar del Castillo Vera, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, this afternoon I am speaking on behalf of Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines.

My first point is that the EP clearly and unconditionally supports the UN Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In relation to this, the resolution to be voted on tomorrow is an attempt to reinforce the main objectives and intentions of the international conference, as follows: firstly, ensuring the best possible protection for fauna and flora resources; secondly, encouraging sustainable use of land for the conservation of species and nature; and finally, preserving our natural genetic capital.

In this respect, a number of conservation programmes ought to be taken into consideration, particularly the models already applied in the EU. Specifically, I mean Natura 2000 and Habitats, which have proved extremely useful.

I also think that we should adopt a comprehensive approach to our work, using integral flexible models, because at the end of the day nature is a dynamic system in constant evolution that is affected by all the requirements placed on it, both for agriculture and other functions.

I also feel that more criteria based on science and training ought to be used, and that all economic and feasibility-related aspects should be taken into consideration.

The opinions of owners and incentives for owners are also important issues, and so I have two questions for the Commission. How does it view the application of scientific methods in the cataloguing and identification of varieties of species or spaces to be preserved? How does it view incentives for owners at all levels?

  María Sornosa Martínez, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, we are all aware that the loss of biological diversity is having widespread environmental, social, economic and cultural effects, further exacerbated by the negative influence of climate change.

The consequences of this situation hit the poorest even harder. The Convention on Biological Diversity is the world’s most important legal instrument for combating the loss of biological diversity. There is, however, a problem here: the lack of financial resources is a major stumbling block in achieving the Convention’s goals. I therefore call on both the Council and the Commission to promote funding for the preservation of biological biodiversity in all the relevant budgets within their remit.

I wish to highlight certain aspects on which the motion for a resolution places particular emphasis: acknowledgement of the constant loss of biodiversity in the European Union, which is now a given; the move to adopt a fair, equitable and legally binding international regime on access to genetic resources and sharing of the benefits arising from them; and encouragement of the application of the existing commitments to better sustainable management and conservation of marine biodiversity, with a view to protecting it against destructive practices and unsustainable fishing activities affecting marine ecosystems.

I wish to finish by saying that it is time to take firm action and strive to solve all these problems since: although I believe there is still time – and we all know this – time is working against us and against the biodiversity we wish to protect.

  Johannes Lebech, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Mr President, the ninth COP meeting on biological diversity could hardly have come at a better time. In recent weeks, much has been said and written about biofuels, and let it be very clear: biofuels must not be produced at the expense of biodiversity. We are of course currently considering the Commission’s proposals for a directive that will promote the use of sustainable energy, including biofuels. Parliament must ensure that strong criteria are established in connection with environmental sustainability for the production of such biofuels. We will not achieve anything in the fight against global warming if we reduce CO2 emissions from cars and at the same time increase CO2 emissions by cutting down forests and plants to produce petrol, thus releasing large quantities of CO2 from the ground. The meeting in Bonn will be a good opportunity to emphasise the importance of the production of biofuels in line with sustainability requirements both within and outside the EU.

In 2002 the parties made a commitment to significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity by 2010 at global, regional and national level. It is important that the parties continue to work towards this goal. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity represents the global framework for the protection of biodiversity. Unfortunately, many international agreements are ending with the lowest common denominators. This is unacceptable when it concerns the protection of nature. The EU must set high standards for itself and try to raise the standards in international agreements. The EU must also do better with regard to the protection of biodiversity. At the moment, we are sometimes saying one thing and doing another. This could weaken our credibility. Nevertheless, the Commission and the Member States must push for greater protection of biodiversity, particularly in forested and agricultural areas, as these areas are coming under particular pressure as more and more biofuels are being produced.

How can we ensure that biodiversity and biofuels do not become an either/or situation? We can do this by imposing stricter requirements. It will then perhaps be possible to achieve both. COP 9 will help to ensure this.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the preservation of biological diversity represents a challenge for the contemporary world. It is not only beauty that is at issue, but also the balance of nature and the good of mankind.

For many years now we have been aware of the problem of chemical contamination and of other detrimental effects of civilisation, such as the deterioration of the environment, climate change, pollution, deforestation and damage to habitats. The greenhouse effect has become a topical issue of late. Unfortunately, the problem of biological contamination caused by genetically modified organisms has been disregarded, and we have all been complicit in that. We have overlooked the fact that whilst chemical contamination can be reversed over time, biological contamination is often irreversible.

We must therefore take an unambiguous decision as to whether we are in favour of biological diversity or in favour of GMOs. We have to decide what we care about most: human beings and their environment or the interests of Monsanto and similar companies that are deriving huge profits from GMOs. If we wish to preserve biological diversity we must also ensure that the most seriously threatened natural species are identified. It would then be possible to set targets for their protection and prevent the extinction of other species in the future. We should remember that it is easy to cause damage but often impossible to reverse it.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, this is obviously not the first time that we have discussed biodiversity and that we have asked the Council and the Commission to defend biodiversity. That we have managed to make climate change an EU priority is a positive step, but we must realise, however, that the Conventions on biodiversity and desertification are somewhat eclipsed by this climate change.

We know how important biodiversity or, when it comes down it, nature protection is for our own survival because we can see that, despite the measures taken at European or global level, the erosion of biodiversity is continuing; the extinction of species is continuing. We must face the facts: although we might try to curb climate change, the same cannot be said for the species. Once a species is extinct, that is it: it is gone forever.

This issue, this evidence must be fully integrated. When we know, for example, that we have excellent tools such as Natura 2000 and the Birds and Habitats Directives to combat the degradation of biodiversity in the European Union, and when we see today that there are still certain Member States that are reluctant to implement Natura 2000, that are reluctant to pay for Natura 2000, it is very clear that we still have a long way to go.

As a result, I genuinely hope that the Commission will continue to support Natura 2000 and continue to support these two Directives. I would also ask that in the framework of the Bonn Convention you establish criteria for biofuels but also demand and obtain agreement on the creation of a group of intergovernmental experts on biodiversity, like the IPCC for climate change, because we could help others to put in place tools that we ourselves are introducing but they have not yet introduced.

  Jens Holm, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (SV) There are an estimated 14 million different species of animals and plants on the earth. This goes to show what a fantastic planet we have and the responsibility we bear for its stewardship. However, this biological diversity is under threat. Over 30 000 species are currently threatened with extinction. The main threat is us humans and the economic system we have built up, which is based on constant growth and consumption. We believe this can be achieved through competition instead of planning, and through transport instead of local production. No wonder that we are facing a climate catastrophe and biological impoverishment.

We could turn this trend around. The fact that the EU and its Member States have signed the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is of course good and it can act as an important tool. We thereby undertake, for example, to draw up action plans to protect biological diversity and establish a global network of protected areas on land and at sea, just as one example. However, most of the work remains to be done at EU level. The fundamental basics must be tackled, otherwise we will never be able to solve the environmental problems we face.

I would like to highlight three areas. Transport insanity – the EU is based on no barriers being introduced between Member States. A good must be produced where this is cheapest. Between 1993 and 2000 alone long-distance lorry transport therefore increased by a whole 30%. When the EU and the Member States subsidise infrastructure, motorways always receive far more than sustainable means of transport do. In the former Eastern Europe, the new Member States, the EU is pursuing a veritable asphalt policy with gigantic motorway subsidies. It is railways which should be stimulated, not motorways. Therefore, I say to the Commission: Take a look at subsidy policy.

Talking of subsidies, an incredible amount could be done about agricultural subsidies, EUR 55 billion each year. Subsidies which have a directly negative impact on the environment should not be paid out, and aid to agriculture should be earmarked for environmental measures and organic farming. Biological diversity and climate-smart solutions should be written in as the main objectives of agriculture policy, not maximum yields.

A third basic problem which must be tackled is the internal market. I know that saying so is tantamount to sacrilege, but the EU simply cannot continue to allow the market to take precedence over a progressive environmental policy. Some weeks ago, EU Commissioner Verheugen answered me saying that in the past five years the Commission had taken individual countries to the European Court of Justice 19 times in cases concerning the environment or public health. What is really frightening is that in all of these 19 cases the court followed the Commission's line, in other words, that the Member States were not permitted to implement measures to protect the environment or public health. If we are really serious, we must have an environmental guarantee worthy of the name. We do not have one now and unfortunately the Lisbon Treaty will not give us one either. Market policy will be upheld there too.

To sum up, in our resolution we demand sustainability standards for biofuels. I would like to take the opportunity to put the following question, maybe especially to the Council: Are you prepared to draw up not only environmental criteria for biofuels but also social standards for biofuels, for example, guaranteeing acceptable pay, union rights, etc. for the biofuel we buy in to the Union?

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, two weeks ago I represented the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Temporary Committee on Climate Change at the informal Environment Council in Slovenia. There were two main topics: dealing with climate change and the protection of biodiversity. The emphasis was on biodiversity, biomass and biofuels in relation to biodiversity in forests. The discussion covered the potential of biomass from forests for energy supplies, particularly the second generation of biofuels, and the sustainability criteria for the use of biomass from forests. It was a successful conference, for which thanks is due to the Slovenian chairman, Mr Podobnic.

We can see that many species are at risk of extinction due to deforestation and illegal logging. They are facing a radical change to their environment and therefore cannot survive. Forests support a wide variety of plant and animal species. It is therefore vital to call a halt to deforestation as far as possible in order to protect biodiversity. That applies not just to countries outside the European Union, but certainly also to the European Member States. Good forestry has to be encouraged, especially since forests are also very valuable in other areas. Deforestation also causes serious soil erosion, certainly in mountain regions, and disturbs the water balance, which has a major impact on biodiversity, too.

Global warming can also affect the number of species. The range of distribution of species is changing considerably, as a result of which some species are at serious risk, especially in the northern regions. Logging in tropical regions only seems to increase warming, partly because it significantly reduces CO2 storage capacity. However, studies published in the last few years, in Nature and Science for instance, show that if forest land is increased the result is higher emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 23 times stronger than CO2. More methane is emitted as the temperature rises and there is more sunshine. In the tropical regions particularly, considerably more methane is emitted. When more forests are planted, CO2 absorption capacity is increased, but some of the CO2 absorption is thus cancelled out by an increase in methane emissions. Nonetheless, the balance is in fact positive, certainly in the non-tropical regions.

Finally, the factors I have mentioned that are negatively affecting biodiversity are unfortunately aggravated by the current production of biofuels, which is having an adverse effect on the tropical rain forest in particular. Forests that are home to a wide range of species are replaced by plantations housing very few species. These are, furthermore, having adverse effects in terms of greenhouse gas, absorption capacity and food prices. I am pleased that that has been brought out in the resolution. In any case, we have to be vigilant with the second generation of biofuels.

  President. − Just because you have written it down does not mean to say that you have to read it out if the time does not allow for it.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, in the light of this debate and of Earth Day yesterday, I would like to highlight the urgent need for greater understanding of the concept of biodiversity and its implications for our society. It is a very poorly understood concept.

Virtually all of Earth’s ecosystems and their services have been dramatically transformed through human action. The current rate of loss of biodiversity is now faster than ever before in human history and there is no sign of this process slowing down. 2010 – how are you!

Many animal and plant populations have declined in numbers and geographical spread. While species extinction is a natural part of the Earth’s history, human activity in recent years has increased the extinction rate by at least a hundred times compared to the natural rate. Within well-studied groups, between 12% and 52% of species are threatened with extinction, according to the IUCN Red List. In general, the most threatened species are those that are higher up the food chain, have a low population density, live longer, reproduce slowly and live within a limited geographical area.

Within many species groups, such as amphibians, African mammals and birds in agricultural lands, the majority of species have faced a decline in the size of their population and in their geographical spread. Exceptions are almost always due to human intervention, such as protection in reserves, or to species that tend to thrive in human-dominated landscapes.

People need to be made aware of their growing ecological footprint, that it reaches far beyond the borders of the EU and that our lifestyles have direct consequences on indigenous people in the developing world. Whilst most of us now have at least some understanding of the extent of the problem of climate change, many have not made the connection between climate change and biodiversity loss.

Indeed, in this area, I think we need to link up the work of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Conference of the Parties on Climate Change. In fact, I would go so far as to ask whether we still need a stand-alone COP on biodiversity. The question should be faced, and I attended the COP last year in New York.

Yes, I agree that climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, including deforestation, must support biodiversity. I welcome Commissioner Wallström’s comments in relation to marine biodiversity issues. We must include here cold-water corals and seamounts, which shelter rich and often unique ecosystems. There are huge gaps in our scientific knowledge on the impact of climate change in marine areas. We must remember that more than 70% of the world’s surface is covered by oceans, 97% of all the planet’s water is contained in the oceans and oceans provide 99% of the Earth’s living space.

I will conclude, Mr President, not to raise your blood pressure any further. Let us be honest with one another. The goals established in Johannesburg six years ago will be impossible to achieve. Let us stop fooling ourselves and stop the talk.

  Anne Ferreira (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on the Environment has adopted a very good resolution and I hope that the European Commission and the Member States will take account of the various recommendations it contains, notably the call for leadership and conviction at the Bonn Conference, but also for efforts within its territory to halt the loss of biodiversity in the European Union by 2010.

I would like to talk about three of the points raised in the resolution. The first is the issue of biofuels, and some of my fellow Members have already mentioned this. They have a considerable environmental impact on forests and on agricultural land, and the impact of their development on food resources will continue to grow. There should be no competition between agricultural products intended for food and those intended for industry, be they for the production of biofuels or for the agrochemical industry. The link between food and agriculture must be clearly established.

The next point relates to marine biodiversity. We have been very slow in dealing with this issue. I fully support the calls in the resolution for rapid action, notably to establish marine protected areas.

The final point concerns GMOs. We now have studies that demonstrate their negative impact on the environment and on the soil in particular. We know that dissemination of GMOs results in pollution of traditional crops, which hinders the preservation of biodiversity.

In addition, the industrial concentration in the seeds sector and the fact that they are controlled by a few multinationals are a cause for concern. This is a situation that the Commission and the Member States must not neglect.

Finally, the Conference of the Parties in Curitiba, Brazil in March 2006 decided to maintain the moratorium on terminator seeds. That was an excellent decision, but now we might want to consider whether the moratorium is sufficient and whether we should perhaps prohibit the use of these types of single-use GM seeds.

What do the Commission and the Member States intend to do in relation to these points at the Conference of the Parties in Bonn? Have you already an idea of the sustainability criteria concerning biofuels that could be presented in Bonn?

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, like Ms Doyle earlier on, I thought I had a longer time, but taking advantage of your generosity, I will settle for a minute and a half.

Biodiversity is essential in order to safeguard the survival of the Earth’s ecosystems and to maintain an invaluable genetic pool of distinctive species-specific characteristics. This Parliament has reiterated its concern on biodiversity loss through its relevant resolution of 22 May 2007, but one of the main obstacles to halting biodiversity loss is, I am afraid to say, the lack of effective action by both the Commission and the Council, both of which give the impression that they care about the matter largely only in theory and that, in practice, they suffer from lack of will and determination in making sure that, in real terms, there is full implementation of relevant directives and that both international and internal commitments are fulfilled.

Let us hope that, even at this late stage, the Commission and Council will act decisively and constructively in helping, partly through their firm stance at the forthcoming conference in Bonn, to protect biodiversity effectively.

  President. − Mr Matsakis, in fact, both Ms Doyle and your group had given the times I gave, so it is your group’s submission and their bad communication to you, because I have always applied the rule that, if a Member speaks in a language other than his own, I always give him extra time – and not just in English.

  Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, all those of us who have spoken here have voiced our commitment to more species protection and more biodiversity. We know that the nature conservation Directives and the network of nature conservation areas created by Natura 2000 are a success story for the European Union. However, all these fine words and all these commitments must not distract attention from the fact that – as you have said, Commissioner – it is not only the climate issue that has dominated the headlines; so, too, has species and nature conservation, unfortunately.

All too often, endangered species are portrayed as nuisances which halt or obstruct building projects. That is why I think it is shameful that in Germany, of all countries, which will be hosting the Conference of the Parties, conservative-led Land governments such as Hesse and Lower Saxony have launched an initiative in the Bundesrat which constitutes an assault on this EU success story.

It lacks all credibility for Germany to call for more nature conservation areas and more protection for endangered species in poorer countries while attempting to water down nature conservation in the European Union. Unfortunately, it is not only Germany! Quite suddenly, the Liberal Group in the European Parliament also held a seminar on this issue. Mr Stoiber's attack on nature conservation in Europe was conducted in exactly the same way, under the guise of 'simplification'.

I expect you, Madam Commissioner, to give a clear commitment once again to the European Union that any attempts ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. Mr Matsakis has already mentioned the problems of implementation, and I would simply like to give a couple of examples. In Europe and the Carpathian basin the protection of our forests is presenting more and more of a challenge. In some places forests are set alight, in others they are obliterated or they are quite simply stolen. In the Carpathians or, for example, in Sajólád, 30-40% of the forests have already been stolen. Illegal felling reduces biodiversity, causes erosion, and contributes 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. To call a halt to this, four of our fellow MEPs sent a written statement to the Commission about a law to allow only timber and products from trees from legal and controlled felling to be sold in the EU. I would ask my fellow MEPs to sign in support of the statement of the 23rd.

Preserving biodiversity is an important national objective. The Hungarian Government’s position on neglect of the Natura 2000 sites is such that this week, when we are celebrating the Day of the Land, the Central Europe Rally, part of the Dakar Series, was organised, unimpeded, through areas of enhanced environmental protection, and even through Natura 2000 sites. There was no environmental impact assessment, no plans for rehabilitation or protection, and there was not even a licence for organising the competition. There is no income that can compensate for the environmental damage this causes. But we do not manage any better with our birds either. It was only two weeks ago that the European Commission sent Hungary a final written warning. It did this because Hungary had not brought in any national measures to protect wild birds.

But I do not want to give only bad examples. Recently a unique, voluntary agreement in Europe was signed in Hungary too, thanks to my initiative, on halting the loss of birdlife caused by overhead electricity cables. Under this project for an obstacle-free sky, the general public, the electricity industry and the state agreed that, by arranging cables, insulation and so on, there would be a safe ‘sky corridor’ in Hungary for birds by 2020. This is a ground-breaking agreement, of major significance, and deserves Europe’s attention and support. Thank you.

  Magor Imre Csibi (ALDE). – (RO) At the Bonn meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the issue of forest biodiversity will also be discussed.

This is a sensitive subject to which no sustainable solution has yet been found. Forest biodiversity is threatened by illegal deforestation carried out globally. Their effect is the substantial, mostly irreversible, reduction of biodiversity. Moreover, deforestation represents the third major factor of global warming.

PECH expressed its position regarding the significant impact of deforestation on the climate, the long-term economic advantages and the importance of preserving forests intact, in the Resolution of November 2007 on trade and climate change.

I also appreciate the EU initiative of the Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade.

I have mentioned European actions that, unfortunately, do not bring the intended results. For instance, in implementing the Action Plan, 70% of the EU countries did not manage to carry out any actual action until April 2007.

We need to find a global solution as soon as possible. I encourage the EU delegates to the Bonn conference to support the drafting of a standard definition of what illegal cutting means and that would support the rational use of forests.

Moreover, I encourage the start of discussions regarding the launch of a global mechanism supervising wood cutting and trading.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the European Union's motto is 'unity in diversity' but, as we know, in the natural world this diversity has decreased alarmingly over the last 150 years. Loss rates currently amount to between 1 000 and 10 000 times higher than the average during the earth's history. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) currently lists around 15 600 species at risk of extinction worldwide. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that the main producer countries of wheat and maize have lost more than 80% of their original varieties, and these figures are just the tip of the iceberg, for we know that to date, only around 1.7 million of the world's estimated 13 million living species have been identified and described. We also know that climate change is exacerbating the situation. However, we are equally aware that this loss of biological diversity reduces our ability to respond to climate change in particular, so we really face a difficult dilemma.

Unfortunately, then, I must ask the Commission this: why are we not mainstreaming sustainability and species diversity in all areas of our policy? Why are we not undertaking more research and development on the coexistence of species, and, indeed, humans?

Anyone following this debate could get the impression that the establishment of a few Habitat sites and the protection of birds are enough. However, these are just the tip of the iceberg. Why do we not get our citizens on board in tackling these tasks, which we all have to play a part in resolving? The Commission has some homework to do here, and the same applies to us here in the European Parliament, and the Council. Just going off to conferences and signing declarations is really not enough. It is time to act, and that means acting together!

  Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I think that if there is one thing to do to try to halt the loss of biodiversity, it would be to halt the destruction of tropical forests. Every year, 14 to 15 million hectares are gone. We have been discussing this issue for years and with no real progress.

The real problem is that ecosystem services, whether we are talking about carbon sinks, biodiversity or regulation of the regional climate or hydrological system, have no real value on the market. It is a shortcoming of our economic model, and as long as we do not compensate forest owners for those values – so that it is not more profitable to log forests but keep them there – this rate of deforestation is going to continue.

There is a solution: include forests in the emissions trading. The Commission, however, is against this, and you have your reasons. The problem is that you provide no alternative, and we all know that there are very limited financial resources in the Biodiversity Convention – and there are not likely to be any in the future either.

I know that the Commission cares as much about deforestation in the tropics as the rest of us do, but the problem is: where is your alternative? We need a package. We need a comprehensive approach addressing climate change, carbon sinks, biodiversity and protection of livelihoods of the poor. It would require DG Environment and DG Development to work closely together. So far that has not happened. Please give us an alternative so that we have something on the table and can discuss, otherwise I am afraid deforestation will continue and so will biodiversity loss.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, agricultural production has become more intense in order to meet the increased demand for agricultural products and for raw materials produced for uses other than consumption. This intensification is due in particular to the production of biofuels and biomass. We know that intensive farming is detrimental to biological diversity. Against this background the question arises as to how to reconcile the preservation of biological diversity with intensive development of the economy and infrastructure.

Modern management of biological diversity calls for increased monitoring of the processes being developed and suitable investment in scientific research. We have benefited from economic development and should therefore devote part of its benefit, that is to say, part of the profit gained, to maintaining biological diversity. Essentially, we need to understand that preserving and protecting the environment requires action at both global and local level. Each of us needs to take action as an individual and so too do whole sectors of the economy. This is a challenge for us all.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to hear whether the Commission, in respect of the CAP Health Check, has already given some thought to how we can go forward here, especially in the next financial perspective. The fact is that renewable energy and biofuels are of course major challenges for us, and they should be incorporated into the financial framework of the health check.

This will play a major role in relation to CO2 developments as well, which of course we are obliged to reduce under the Kyoto Protocol. My specific question is this: which proposals will the Commission be making here?

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, we are debating how to preserve biological diversity for the next generation, yet at the same time we are adopting measures which are completely counterproductive. After the initial euphoria surrounding the production of agro-diesel, we now know that it has counterproductive effects, not only because it takes 9 000 litres of water to produce one litre of agro-diesel and that it causes nitrous oxide emissions, which are far more damaging than CO2. We also know that the cultivation of energy crops jeopardises and even destroys species diversity.

In light of these new findings and in the interests of conserving biodiversity, are you considering suspending the decisions that we have taken on the admixture of agro-diesel in conventional fuels? Are you considering investing in new research, and perhaps developing an alternative strategy, since we now know about the negative impacts and outcomes?

  Janez Podobnik, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) I would first like to thank you for you very involved debate. I agree with you that it is a real art to talk succinctly, synthetically and simply about such a serious and complex problem as biodiversity. That was one of the reasons, Mr President, why you had problems trying to fit everything into the time allowed for the debate.

Allow me to comment briefly on your debate. I will open with the first assertion, in which you confirmed the Council’s position that climate change and the effect on biodiversity are related and interdependent. Your debates were wide and touched on numerous issues covering the narrower content of the meeting in Bonn. They also concerned the lifestyle of modern, 21st century man, starting with waste and transport policy and touching on the question of sustainable production, sustainable consumption and so on.

I can assure you with personal conviction that the European Union has good mechanisms and that we have the measures. I have already said in my introduction that our key aim was to be present in Bonn and strive for implementation, move towards reality and continue on our path from words to action.

You asked about financial resources. We have defined and agreed on financial mechanisms at the European level. I would like to stress that in Bonn the Council will work for new and innovative financial resources. I mean globally and not just at the European level. I would like to point out the need to link the sectors that affect biodiversity. I would especially like to emphasise the role of the private sector. The three Presidencies, namely Germany, Portugal and Slovenia, have endeavoured to ensure that the issue of private-sector involvement in the biodiversity problem will be raised in Bonn. The Conference on Business and Biodiversity held in Portugal was very successful. We hope that in Bonn we will build on the solutions proposed in Portugal.

I would like to thank Mr Blokland, who mentioned the informal meeting of Environment Ministers held in Ljubljana. Mr Blokland took part on behalf of two of your committees and I would like to thank him for that. We addressed the issue of forests, sustainable exploitation of forests, the influence they have on biodiversity, and the possibility of using them for biomass and second generation biofuels.

I would like to inform you that the Council is aware of the seriousness and complexity of sustainable criteria in the production of biofuels and biomass. That was also the reason why we agreed with the Commission and cooperated with it to form a working group which, at COREPER next month, will propose good solutions for sustainable criteria in the production of biofuels. They will then become a constituent part of both the directives that are now in the process of being adopted. My special thanks go to all those who, in addition to social effects and adverse effects in the production of biofuels, also mentioned their influence on biodiversity. Sometimes we forget about that.

I would like to conclude this brief comment by reiterating that, at the global level, we are working on establishing a network of protected regions on land and sea. The European Union possesses a good and effective instrument called Natura 2000 and it is significant that it is being consistently implemented at national and European levels.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I think that this lively and knowledgeable debate reflects the interest of this House in these issues. I thank you for that. I definitely know that I speak on behalf of Commissioner Dimas when he wants to thank you for the interest Parliament takes in relation to these issues. I recognise some old colleagues in the fight for environmental protection and biodiversity.

Homo sapiens as a race is an interesting thing, because we can fly to the moon, we can do mass communication through information technology and we can definitely talk. But we cannot create the rhinoceros or an eel or a little blue flower, and, when these creatures are gone, they are gone for ever, as you have rightly pointed out.

Let me just comment on a few things which I think are of principle interest. I would like to start with the issue of biofuels, because this is also a very lively debate right now in all the media and a big problem and challenge for all of us. As you know, the European Council agreed this 10% biofuels target subject to very clear conditions, and our position in the European Union is that we want sustainable biofuels that have no negative environmental or food production impact. We in the Commission consider the long-term benefits of biofuels in terms of less CO2 emissions because, remember, the alternative today is oil. Security of supply and agriculture: new opportunities can be obtained thanks to the principles that were established. A limited target of 10%, robust sustainability criteria and also aiming at second-generation biofuels – this is the real challenge: to make sure that we can move as quickly as possible into the use of second-generation biofuels.

But we will also have to act internationally on these issues and make sure that there are sustainability criteria and that this does not add to the food crisis.

Let me also say, in response to Mr Wijkman, that this whole issue of deforestation will be addressed in a communication, as I understand this summer or early fall, so this issue will also be addressed in the negotiations.

At the same time it is necessary to catch the whole debate that is going on right now and make sure that we prepare properly a good discussion and a good decision on deforestation. That must also be prepared for the climate change negotiations.

I would also say to Ms Doyle that maybe the main thing is not to try to merge the negotiations between the different Conferences of Parties but rather to make sure that we maximise the co-benefits when we implement both the measures on fighting climate change and making sure that we can keep up our biodiversity targets.

So I think this is what has to be done now, especially when it comes to protecting tropical forests and to ensuring that we have these sustainability criteria for biofuels.

So I think we should not aim for what we know is already impossible or would bring us into an administrative and otherwise impossible political situation but look for the implementation. This goes for the whole debate on legislation and regulation and ambitious targets. We have them. We have them already, but now it is a matter of implementing them and, of course, working, as I tried to tell you, on the seven points that we aim for in the negotiations, to make sure that we also work internationally with partners to ensure we have a good scientific basis which we will move into very concrete implementation. That is what I can say in general.

Finally, the action plan that was established is exactly about mainstreaming, including making sure that we also look at the common agricultural policy.

So I think from this point of view, again, it is about making sure that we convince both Member States and all our institutions to do everything to implement our targets.

I will not take more time. I am very aware of the need to stick to our timetable, so may I say thank you once again for the debate and also assure you that Commissioner Dimas personally intends to attend the ministerial segment of COP 9. I am sure he looks forward to seeing some of you there and I anticipate your support towards a successful outcome of these important meetings.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), in writing. – (PL) I fully support the resolution in question.

The Ninth Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is to be held in Bonn in May 2008. Representatives of various countries will be assessing the loss of biological diversity that is taking place the world over. Participants will also consider a fair and honest way of sharing the benefits derived from exploitation of genetic resources. Loss of biological diversity in forests has particularly negative consequences. It affects the rate of deforestation and accelerates the climate crisis. I share the concern that climate change will lead to even further deterioration of biological diversity in the world, and will result in degradation of the environment and the extinction of certain species. This will in turn have a negative impact on human development and the fight against poverty. It is already known that deforestation and degradation of forests are responsible for 20% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.

Against this background, the European Union’s credibility is being seriously compromised due to ineffective implementation by Member States of legislation concerning biological diversity and Directives such as those concerning birds and habitats. The resistance to certain political action is causing similar negative effects. By way of example I could mention the insufficient effort to implement commitments aimed at halting the process of loss of biological diversity on EU territory by 2010. There is also an unwillingness to enter into negotiations regarding the instrument allowing benefits to be accessed and shared, and an unwillingness to allocate additional targeted funding to implement conventions in developing countries.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

12. Question Time (Council)

  President. − The next item is Question Time (B6-0019/2008).

The following questions are addressed to the Council.

  President. − Question No 1 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0154/08)

Subject: Expansion of the Schengen area

Has the Council assessed the political consequences of the recent expansion of the Schengen area and its repercussions on relations between the EU and the neighbouring countries, whether or not EU Member States, which will now border on the expanded Schengen area?

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) Four months have passed since the last expansion of the Schengen area on 21 December last year. As you know, the process of expansion was not actually concluded until the end of March, when the border controls at airports were removed. Therefore, there has not been a lot of time or opportunity for assessment of the general political effect of the expansion and its impact on relationships between the Member States of the European Union which apply the Schengen rules and the neighbouring countries.

However, some Council working parties are already discussing issues such as the reorganisation of the border authorities of some Member States following the expansion of the Schengen area, and the changes and trends in illegal immigration that could be a consequence of the expansion. Undoubtedly, the expansion of the Schengen area had a very positive effect on the European Union’s visa policy, especially for the citizens of third countries. They can travel throughout the whole of the Schengen area with a visa issued by a new Member State, which was not previously the case.

In addition, the European Union has already concluded agreements with eastern European countries and the countries of the Western Balkans on simplifying the issuing of visas.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, Minister, many thanks for your reply. Since you are from a country which is in this very situation, I feel sure the Slovenian Presidency is following the matter with great interest.

I have personally taken the trouble to visit some of the countries in this situation: on the one hand I hope we do obtain a guarantee on our borders, but on the other we have no wish for the EU to build a new wall, new ramparts.

What guarantees do we have that expansion of the Schengen area will not create difficulties, for example, for cross-border workers or for those used to entering countries that now form part of the Schengen area without any problems, and this applies notably to Slovenia, which has a neighbour applying for accession to the European Union?

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) Thank you, Mr Medina Ortega, for your supplementary question. As has already been mentioned, the Council has not yet had a discussion at the highest level and has not made a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the expansion of the Schengen area on individual countries.

You asked about the Slovenian experience and I will say this: it is most certainly not a question of building new walls, but of shifting the European Union’s external borders to new borders. It means that the external borders of the Schengen area have moved to incorporate a larger number of European Union Member States. It was a demanding project for the States whose borders are now partly new external borders of the Schengen area. They spent many years preparing for it. This project was very challenging and the European Union recognised it by setting up a special source of financing called the ‘Schengen Facility’, which helped to establish appropriate controls at the new external borders of the Schengen area.

You also asked about the border between Slovenia and Croatia. It is a fact that this was an invisible border in the past. It is also a fact that it was a provisional border at the time we gained independence. In cooperation with our partners in the European Union, we actually managed to organise border controls that do not make it more difficult for citizens of the Republic of Croatia to cross. We also managed to preserve all the elements required by the Schengen standards and regulations for effective border controls.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, the expansion of the Schengen area in December last year has led to more, not less, security. This is borne out by the statistics, and we should be pleased about that.

In the next stage, Switzerland and Liechtenstein are now to be included in the Schengen area, but I hear that there could be problems because some Member States may wish to enter reservations about the accession of Liechtenstein. I have heard various comments from the Czech Republic to that effect.

I therefore have a question for the Council: are you aware of these possible reservations, and what will you do to avoid any problems associated with the non-accession of Liechtenstein?

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – My question refers to the Schengen rules and their contribution to climate change and increased carbon dioxide emissions. Last Wednesday I had the pleasure of flying from Brussels to Ljubljana to be a guest in your lovely country for two days as part of the PPE-DE Bureau.

Having landed in Ljubljana, we all disembarked from the plane and were pushed into a bus, as happens at many airports. We were crammed into a bus. It took 22 minutes. Then the bus took off for what we thought was clearance through passport or clearance to the baggage. It moved exactly 20 yards, Madam President – from where I stand to where you are – and we all disembarked and went in the gate. I joke not. When I questioned the nonsense of this procedure, I was assured that it was required under Schengen rules. Explain please, Minister!

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) In answer to Mr Pirker: it is a fact that procedures to include the Swiss Federation and the Principality of Liechtenstein in the Schengen area have already begun. At the moment these procedures and the evaluation procedures are still ongoing. The Presidency’s opinion is that the entry of these two countries into the Schengen area depends exclusively on the results of these procedures, especially the evaluation results. We do not know of any objections raised by any of the Member States regarding the procedures envisaged for the entry of any individual country into the Schengen area.

In answer to Mrs Doyle, I must admit I am not convinced that those are Schengen rules. They most probably concern airport safety regulations. In any case I could not explain here the reasons for the 20-metre ride on the airport bus. I presume there are regulations covering movements at airports which are not part of the Schengen rules but probably relate to airport security.

  President. − Thank you, Minister. Perhaps you will be able to investigate on your way home tonight.

  President. − Question No 2 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0159/08)

Subject: Retaining the economically active population in mountain, difficult-to-access and island areas

A high percentage of human resources often decides to abandon the regions of the EU because of the dearth of job opportunities, leaving those regions depopulated and inhabited only by the elderly.

In the light of this trend and the acute demographic problem facing the EU, will the Presidency propose measures to retain the economically active population in mountain, difficult-to-access and island areas so that all the regions of the EU develop in a balanced way and the EU maintains its competitiveness?

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) In response to Mrs http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/alphaOrder/view.do?language=SL&id=28571" \o "PANAYOTOPOULOS-CASSIOTOU, Marie" , I would like to say this: In addition to four other regulations in the field of cohesion policy, the Council adopted the Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund in July 2006. In accordance with Article 3 of this Regulation, the aid from these funds was also intended for certain islands and island Member States and for mountainous areas.

At the same time the Council and the European Parliament adopted a Regulation on the European Social Fund. This Regulation gives the following definition of the role of the European Social Fund: improving opportunities for business and employment, encouraging a high level of employment, and creating new and better jobs. These two regulations are harmonised to secure support for specific areas. In accordance with them the Member States can, in their operational programmes and projects, pay special attention to stimulating development and employment in the regions mentioned by the honourable Member in her question. Therefore, it is up to a Member State to decide for itself which of these operational programmes and concrete measures from these programmes satisfy the criteria listed in the question. The Commission evaluates proposed programmes, points out any inadequacies for reaching the targets of the cohesion policy and satisfying the provisions of particular regulations, and, if all the conditions are satisfied, approves these proposals.

When it comes to the shaping of any new legal measures in the area of cohesion policy, the duty of the Commission is to make decisions that enable the targets of the cohesion policy to be met. The first opportunity for the period 2007 to 2013 will be the debate on the first interim report on the implementation of the cohesion policy. We expect the Commission to present the report in June.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, I thank the minister for repeating all the measures envisaged under the Structural Funds and the European Social Fund. I wanted to know whether the Presidency and the Council are aware that certain regions of Europe remain uninhabited. They do of course belong to national states, but this impoverishes the EU and exposes it to people invited in from other regions. This subject concerns us all, for it does not relate solely to each individual state. That is why I ask whether the Presidency intends to take any special interest in the matter.

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) Thank you for this supplementary question, Mrs Panayotopoulos. The Presidency is aware that there is no longer an active population in some regions. However, I would like to reiterate that it is up to the Member States which are proposing the required measures to prevent this phenomenon from happening. On the other hand, we must appreciate that we cannot force people to live and work in particular regions.

It is a serious problem which has to be solved. I repeat that the cohesion policy measures offer solutions, but it is up to the Member States which of those solutions to propose for given concrete cases.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE). – (DE) Minister, may I take issue with your last comments. Of course, the competence lies with the Member States here, but the European Union also has a responsibility for the depopulation of these regions; this is happening because of what we face throughout the European Union, namely liberalisation. Post offices are being closed down in small communities because they are no longer making a profit, local savings banks are being closed down, and local swimming pools are being closed down, in some cases, because public services are being privatised. All this makes life in these communities slightly less worth living. I come from a mountain region and I have seen it happening. My question, then, is whether any thought has been given to this issue at Council level.

Madam President, may I also make one brief comment in response to the previous question: in Graz too, you have to get on a bus to travel five metres, so you are not the only one. It is the same old nonsense: they claim that Schengen is to blame, which of course is completely untrue.

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) I think it was 20 and not five metres, but even that is too short. As I said before, I do not wish to discuss the workings of Ljubljana airport, which is an independent company following its own rules of operation. However, I would like to reiterate that the European Union cohesion policy provides for the Member States to deal with the problem pointed out by Mrs Panayotopoulos. How successful they are is another question that may be asked.

You mentioned postal services, which is a very interesting point. However, I must stress that the Directive concerning postal services, which the European Parliament also adopted this year, addresses this problem too. An important element of the Directive is the guarantee that the postal services will be universal even after this market has been opened up. Therefore, the problem you mentioned has been appropriately addressed by that Directive.

  President. − Question No 3 by Hélène Goudin (H-0161/08)

Subject: Lisbon Treaty

Article 1, paragraph 24, relating to Chapter 1, Article 10 A, paragraph 2, (Principles and aims) states that the Union shall '(f) help develop international measures to preserve and improve the quality of the environment and the sustainable management of global natural resources, in order to ensure sustainable development'.

Does the Council consider that this provision implies that an EU ban on a particular environmental measure which goes beyond a fully harmonised level may be regarded as contrary to the Treaty?

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) Mrs Goudin’s question is not covered by the Council’s competences. The Council as such did not take part in the intergovernmental conference which prepared the draft for the Lisbon Treaty, but the Member States’ governments did. In addition, as we know, the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. When it comes into force, and we hope that will be soon and by the anticipated deadline, it will be the court that will be competent to deal with the explanation of its provisions – I think that is what Mrs Goudin was asking about.

  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Minister, we have had many estimations given to us in this House as to how similar the old Constitution and the proposed new Lisbon Treaty are. Could you give us your own view as to how similar the two documents actually are?

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – (SV) Madam President, I believe that we should reasonably be able to ask questions about how we are to interpret the Treaty, which is now being presented under another name but is the same, and that the Council ought then to be able to answer the question. My supplementary question now to Question No 3 is: Does this wording mean that the EU will decide not only the objectives of global environmental policy but also the means, the means the Member States are to use to achieve the objective?

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) The question as to how similar or different the Lisbon Treaty is to or from the former Constitutional Treaty is primarily down to personal impressions. It is a different treaty from the Constitutional Treaty but offers some similar or even identical solutions. I will limit myself to the following facts.

It is different inasmuch as it is not the kind of treaty that supersedes all previous treaties. This is a classic method of adapting fundamental European Union treaties. It is different in the sense that the constitution concept has been dropped and there is no longer talk of a European Union Constitution, but of a classic treaty.

Similarities or equivalents are to be found in numerous solutions, including institutional solutions, functional solutions and solutions in the areas of simplification, the adoption of decisions and an increased role for the national parliaments and the European Parliament. Therefore, the treaty is different from the previous Constitutional Treaty, but offers some similar or even identical solutions.

As regards the second question: I paid special attention to the language of Mrs Goudin’s question and I would like to point out that this provision concerns the Union’s support in shaping international measures to preserve and improve the quality of the environment, sustainable development and so on. In other words, the Union does not prescribe or order, but helps. I think this language speaks for itself.

  President. − I am going to take one more supplementary question on this particular question. We have had a whole spate of indications, but I take into account political balance and who has asked a question already.

  Jens Holm (GUE/NGL). – (SV) The wording cited by Mrs Goudin is good, and it is fantastic that we want to protect and improve the environment, that is good wording in the Lisbon Treaty. The constant problem with the EU’s environmental policy is when environmental measures conflict with the internal market. Recently Commissioner Verheugen stated that in the past five years the Commission has taken Member States to the European Court of Justice a whole 19 times in cases where Member States have legislated to protect the environment. In all 19 cases the court ruled in favour of the internal market and against the environment. I am wondering whether this in any way strengthens the environmental guarantee? With this wording, can we say that the environment takes precedence over the demands of the market? Could you issue a statement on this please?

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) Yes, I would like to say to Mr Holm that I totally agree with him. It is absolutely the case that there are clashes between legal norms in different areas, even when it comes to the nature of the legal norm. That norm or that provision of the Lisbon Treaty, which I repeat is not yet in force, talks about the Union’s support. The nature of the legal norm is different from an order or a ban. The largest number of orders or bans can actually be found in the common market.

It is a fact that there is the possibility of a clash, but it is also a fact that it is in the nature of things for these clashes to be resolved by the Court in accordance with current Community law. There is a way of eliminating the risk of a clash when formulating the legal norms, but that is a matter for the European Commission, which alone has the right of legislative initiative. I am convinced that when it takes that initiative it is careful to avoid any potential clashes.

  President. − Question No 4 by Marian Harkin (H-0163/08)

Subject: Lisbon Treaty

Is the Council satisfied that questions submitted by the Slovenian Presidency to the Member States, which included thirty-three points on the Lisbon Treaty that needed clarification, have been adequately responded to?

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) Mrs Harkin asked about the points raised by the Slovenian Presidency. It is a matter of the technical work that is needed to prepare for the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, work which should be done in advance if we want to enforce the Treaty to the full extent. This work started in January, in accordance with the mandate which the European Council bestowed on the Slovenian Presidency in December last year.

I must stress that these activities are of a purely preliminary nature. They are preliminary because, as we know, the Treaty will come into force only after it has been ratified by all 27 Member States. Nevertheless, the Council regularly gives reports on this preliminary preparatory work, or technical work, to the Office of the President of the European Parliament, especially when they concern issues that involve the European Parliament.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – I am pleased that the Slovenian presidency is making good progress. I want to raise with the Minister one or two issues that are causing controversy in Ireland at the moment. I would like clarification from the Slovenian presidency on these issues.

First of all, in the matter of the introduction of a common consolidated tax base, and indeed the matter of tax harmonisation, could you clarify that each country has a veto on these matters?

Secondly, I want to ask you about the protocol annexed to the Lisbon Treaty on the Euratom Treaty. I want you to clarify for me whether this protocol amends or changes in any way the substance or procedures of the Euratom Treaty and whether there is any change in the legal base or any implications, in particular with regard to nuclear power.

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − I will make an exception and speak English, Ms Harkin, in order to avoid any further controversy and to make myself maximally clear on the issues you raised.

First, taxation: at present, every Member State has a veto on issues related to taxation, be it the common corporate tax base, tax harmonisation or any other taxation issue, and that will remain the case after the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. The Lisbon Treaty does not change that. In the area of taxation, the method of decision-making remains the same: decisions can only be taken by consensus of all Member States, including, of course, Ireland.

Concerning your other question, the same applies: the energy mix, the choice of sources of energy is, and will remain, within the domain of sovereign decisions by Member States. Each Member State is free to choose nuclear power, to include nuclear power in its energy mix and each Member State is free not to choose it. That is going to remain the same after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Given that the Member States have sought clarification on certain points of the Lisbon Treaty, I wonder if I could also seek clarification, specifically on the ‘passerelle clause’. There are many areas where the EU seeks competence but has no legal basis, and that has been the subject of much criticism and scrutiny over the years, but are you not concerned that, with the ‘passerelle clause’, the EU can gain new competences without the need to consult national parliaments? Are you not concerned that this actually undermines national parliaments and democracy across the European Union?

  Jim Allister (NI). – Can the Minister comment on why it was thought necessary to introduce a moratorium during the Irish referendum on bad news from Brussels and on any new controversial proposals from Brussels?

Is fear of the people so great that the Council and the Commission think it better to keep them in the dark? Can you tell us what proposals are subject to this moratorium and, specifically, whether they include anything relating to harmonisation of corporate tax calculations, and, if so, why?

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) Regarding Mr Kamall’s question, I would like to stress the following: the ‘passerelle clause’ enables the Member States to agree to make a decision allowing a certain activity at Union level. I think it is erroneous to regard this as something that could happen without the agreement of the national parliaments. If anyone were to act without the agreement of the national parliament, that action would not have backing at home.

Let me also explain that the Lisbon Treaty will strengthen the roles of the national parliaments, involving them more directly in the mechanisms of the European Union. This ‘passerelle clause’ is also subjugated to this greater role of the national parliaments.

In response to Mr Allister, I must say that I am not familiar with any moratorium. No one has made any decisions, neither the Council nor the Presidency, on a moratorium on bad news or delicate topics.

The question you posed as an illustration, concerning a common consolidated corporation tax base, is not a new question. This issue has been discussed for some time now, for years in fact, and there is still no agreement. Without an agreement, there will be no progress. This is because, as I have already explained in answer to a previous question, taxation matters fall within the category of questions on which the European Union makes decisions exclusively by agreement. That has not changed and will not change, either as a consequence of the Irish referendum or subsequently.

  President. − We now move on to two questions, which will be answered jointly, concerning human rights in China, the first from Ms Doyle and the second from Mr Evans.

  President. − Question No 5 by Avril Doyle (H-0165/08)

Subject: Human rights in China

On 17 January 2008, the European Parliament adopted a resolution (P6_TA(2008)0021) that urged China ‘not to use the 2008 Olympic Games as a pretext to arrest ... and imprison dissidents, journalists, and human rights activists who either report on, or demonstrate against, human rights abuses’.

What actions have the Council taken in response to Parliament's resolution? What responses, if any, has the Council received from the Chinese authorities? Is the Council satisfied that the Chinese authorities are making sufficient efforts to live up to the principles of the Olympic Charter?

Question No 6 by Robert Evans (H-0184/08)

Subject: Human rights in China

In early 2007, human rights activist Yang Chunlin was collecting signatures for a petition in China entitled 'We Want Human Rights, not the Olympics.' In July of that year he was arrested for ‘inciting subversion of state power’ and continues to be held in a detention facility in Jiamusi City.

Does the Council share my deep concern at the ongoing detention and treatment of Yang Chunlin? Does the Council agree with me that the imprisonment of human rights activists runs counter to the promises made by numerous Chinese officials in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics?

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) Like the two MEPs who asked these two questions, the Council is also concerned about the persecution of Chinese human rights activists. As regards Chinese commitments for the Olympics, it is a matter for the International Olympic Committee. However, we can say that recent repressive actions against human rights proponents and other activists are casting doubt on China’s commitment to fulfilling its promises based on international human rights standards. This involves protecting the individual’s legitimate right to free expression.

We are also concerned about evictions and persecutions, including those connected with Olympic constructions. In accordance with the guidelines concerning human rights advocates, the leaders of European Union Member States’ missions to China are carefully following the situation of individuals like Yang Chunlin and Hu Jia. The European Union Council is constantly, and in various ways, warning the Chinese authorities about cases that give rise to concern.

After Hu Jia was detained in December, the Council spoke up several times about his case, but without a satisfactory response. The Council will follow these two cases closely and attempt to take action.

Nevertheless, we should mention some positive cases, for example the speedy release of Chinese journalists, including Yu Huafeng and Ching Cheong. We also welcome the changes in media laws, namely that there has been a temporary relaxation of restrictions on foreign journalists in the run-up to the Olympics.

In the last round of human rights talks between the European Union and China, held in October 2007, the European Union Troika called on China to retain the regulations concerning foreign journalists even when the Olympics had ended. The Chinese delegation gave an assurance that journalists would still be allowed to work more easily after October this year. The Council will certainly discuss this issue again with the Chinese authorities.

You probably know that the Council is preparing for the next round of talks on human rights between the European Union and China. These talks will take place in Ljubljana on 15 May. The EU Troika intends to discuss the most worrying issues of the moment, especially freedom of expression, internet control, the issue of regulations covering foreign journalists, the right to peaceful assembly and the role of civil society. The EU will pay special attention to the problem of the rights of human rights proponents. I can assure you that the EU Troika will do its utmost in the discussion on these issues and will unequivocally show its concern to the Chinese government representatives.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – ‘The goal of Olympianism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, and [...] any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic movement’ – two fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter to which the Chinese have signed up. While I want the Olympics to be a great success – and I feel we should not seek to boycott the Games – we should not be afraid to remind the Chinese authorities that they must make greater efforts to preserve human dignity through a free and fair justice system, free media, better treatment of Tibetans and other ethnic minorities, better animal welfare etc. We must also recognise the enormous demographic, environmental and modernisation challenges facing China. However, as part of this process, would you agree, Council, that they must be able to accept legitimate criticism when they fail to live up to the commitments they have signed up to, such as the fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter?

  Robert Evans (PSE). – The Minister said he had not received satisfactory answers from the Chinese authorities so far. In the weeks and months ahead, will he follow up forcefully what he has asked already and for which he has not received answers? He will be aware that in the run up to their Olympic bid, China made many promises about improvements to their human rights record, assurances which to date, we know, have not yet been met.

Now is the opportune time to act in the pre-Olympic period because afterwards will be too late. On 15 May when they have these discussions, will they actually be discussing what positive steps they can take to press China on freedom of speech, the rights of journalists and the right to free demonstration and so on?

Will he press them also on their use of capital punishment? Because what statistics there are show that China is executing more people than the rest of the world put together at the moment. We cannot have the Olympic Games there without putting this message as forcefully as possible to the Chinese authorities.

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) In answer to Mrs Doyle: as I said in my first answer, the Olympic Charter is a matter for the International Olympic Committee. That body is competent to act if it judges that there has been a violation of the Olympic Charter.

In response to Mr Evans, the European Union is watching over the human rights situation. I have already said that human rights talks between the EU and China will take place on 15 May. They will include the issues of freedom of expression, internet control, regulations covering foreign journalists, the right to peaceful assembly and the role of civil society. This is not a full or exclusive list; other aspects could be discussed too. As far as capital punishment is concerned, the European Union’s position is clear and the EU is consistent in advocating and enforcing it in all multilateral and bilateral fora.

  Vincas Justas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) Minister, you have mentioned that there would be attempts to influence the Chinese Government. How very true. However, the disruptions to the Olympic torch relay have provided an insight into the possibility that during the Olympic Games Chinese television would give us coverage not only of athletic competitions, but also various police riots in the streets and squares, involving both Chinese citizens and tourists. In view of this situation, do you think it is more feasible to exert pressure on China or to choose the path of diplomatic negotiations?

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – It has been alleged that if you want an organ transplant in China they can tell you that they will have the organ very soon, and there is the suspicion that they are in fact killing people to order, so to speak. People who are to be executed are being executed to meet these requests.

I argued here yesterday with another Commissioner that megaphone diplomacy does not work in the case of China. So, can we take it that the Council will be pursuing other forms of diplomacy with China, because that does work? Will you in particular raise these concerns which have been documented and raised with the Council and Commission in the past?

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) On Mr Paleckis’ question: I think the answer is very simple. We must never give up diplomacy as a means of discussion, persuasion and achieving results. Therefore, the answer is simple. As we have said, the Council is conducting a very developed dialogue between the European Union and China. This is an ongoing dialogue and a new chapter will be revealed next month. We wish to continue with this dialogue, of which human rights are, and will remain, the important element.

I cannot comment on Mr Mitchell’s question because the Council has not debated this phenomenon and does not have an opinion on it. Mr Mitchell, you will probably agree that I cannot comment on information and data appearing in the media or elsewhere.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President-in-Office, you rightly said that in practice, dialogue can contribute to resolving conflicts. My question is this: can you imagine creating new fora with China, whether it be in education or research? Learning from each other and understanding each other must be a key focus of attention. After all, at international level, we not only have sport, music and business; there are the personal human relations as well, and we need new fora here.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – I would just like to follow up on the question asked by my colleague, Mr Evans. If the Chinese do not address the issues outlined by my colleague satisfactorily, what action does he believe the Council and EU Member States should take?

If he feels that he cannot answer that at the moment, what actions would he suggest the Council seek to take? Or will we just sit idly by and meekly accept whatever the Chinese tell us and simply attend the Olympics? What action should we take?

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) In a way Mr Rübig’s and Mr Kamall’s questions are connected. The question was about what can be done if we do not receive a satisfactory response, and one of the possibilities is certainly to repeat the request. You asked about new platforms for the dialogue with China – yes, of course, if the need arises and if the Council and the Chinese delegation agree to such a broadening of the dialogue. However, I think it is essential for the dialogue to continue, and I see this as a joint answer to both gentlemen. The Council is determined to continue the dialogue and to address the human rights issue.

  President. − Question No 7 by Koenraad Dillen (H-0233/08)

Subject: Tibet

The EU responded strongly to the violent suppression of the riots in Myanmar some time ago. Economic sanctions were imposed and a special EU envoy was appointed for the country.

In the case of China, the Council is expressing itself with far more restraint. Indeed, the spokeswoman for the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Mr Javier Solana, went so far as to say: 'Relations between the EU and China are completely different to relations between the EU and Myanmar.'

Does the Council consider there to be a difference between Myanmar and China as regards the massive violations of human rights and the violent action of the authorities? Can the Council inform me what improvements have been brought about by the political dialogue with regard to the human rights situation and the position of the Tibetan language and culture? What is the Council's view of the proposal by Amnesty International that international observers should be admitted to Tibet so that an investigation can be carried out?

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) Like the European Parliament, the Council is also concerned about recent events and human rights violations in Tibet.

On 19 March, only a few days after the events, the Council made a statement in the name of the European Union, in which it appealed for restraint. It called on the Chinese Government to respond to the anxiety of the Tibetans regarding the respect of human rights. It appealed to the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama to enter into a concrete and constructive dialogue which would lead to a lasting solution acceptable to all and entirely respectful of Tibetan culture, religion and identity. The Slovenian Presidency sent a similar statement on behalf of the European Union during the session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 25 March.

We are aware of the calls for a United Nations enquiry into the Chinese response to the events in Tibet. The Council appealed to the Chinese Government to lift the restrictions on access to the region, which would help in an independent evaluation of the situation. The human rights talks between the European Union and China, which have been mentioned several times today and will take place in the Slovenian capital, Ljubljana, on 15 May, will be another occasion to discuss the situation in Tibet and other pressing issues, such as the position of human rights proponents. The European Union Troika will insist that the Chinese authorities allow foreign journalists access to Tibet in accordance with the new rules adopted in the run-up to the Olympic Games.

The European Union and China will talk in Ljubljana about internet censorship and thereby continue the debate which started during the last round of the dialogue in October last year.

It is important to assess the human rights dialogue in the context of a broader dialogue between the EU and China on human rights, reforms and political and social advances. The issues underlying the disturbances we witnessed in Tibet are regularly discussed as part of the human rights dialogue with China. These issues are freedom of religious persuasion, minority rights and cultural rights. The EU Troika held a very open discussion with the Chinese authorities on the restriction of religious freedom in the last round of talks in October last year.

Among the recent positive changes in the field of human rights in China is also the fact that new employment law came into force this year and the competence to review capital sentences is back in the hands of the Supreme People’s Court. Consequently, the number of executions has fallen.

Finally, I would like to stress that the European Union is following the situation in Burma just as closely as the situation in Tibet. As regards the latter, the European Union is actively supporting the United Nations’ efforts to accelerate the transition to democracy, reconciliation and development of the country, and is involved in consultations with its Asian partners.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) I thank the Minister for his answer, which was fairly detailed, but unfortunately did not get to the heart of the matter. We in this Chamber are all agreed that we should be concerned about the human rights situation in Burma and China. I venture to doubt that a positive change is under way. I should like to point out that, only a few weeks ago, the French newspaper Libération published photos of the equipment used to torture Tibetan prisoners in China on the front page, so I do doubt that there has been any positive change.

However, I shall put my question in more specific terms. Why does the European Union have double standards, when, for instance, very strong action is taken against Burma, with economic sanctions, whereas that does not happen with China? Could it be that, when major economic interests are involved, we are rather less principled than with human rights?

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) I cannot agree with you, Mr Dillen, that there are double standards. I think the European Union does not hold double standards. If that were the case, the Slovenian Presidency would not have spoken on behalf of the European Union at the session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on 25 March on the subject you mentioned.

When it comes to human rights, the European Union strives to have the same standards for all third countries. The question is what means should be used. That differs from case to case. When deciding what levers or measures to introduce, it is essential to consider the probability of achieving the desired result.

  President. − Question No 8 by Colm Burke (H-0167/08)

Subject: Human rights in Chad

Can the Council state exactly how it is increasing diplomatic pressure for a ceasefire in Chad to protect beleaguered civilians and increase diplomatic efforts to secure peace?

Two opposition politicians, whom the Chadian Government says it is not holding, were in fact seized by state security forces on 3 February in Chad. After the coup attempt in early February, how is the Council ensuring freedom of the political opposition following arrests which were part of a crackdown on political opponents in the capital, N'Djamena?

President Déby declared a state of emergency on 14 February, granting his government exceptional powers to censor the media, search people and property, and tightly regulate all movement in Chad. How is the Council ensuring that the Déby administration is not infringing the human rights of Chadian citizens with these newly acquired more expansive powers?

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) The Council has been closely following the civil rights situation in Chad, especially since the Chadian authorities declared a state of emergency. As we know, the state of emergency was revoked on 16 March. The Council called on President Déby to respect fundamental rights and freedoms, exercise restraint and release the detainees immediately. At the moment only one person is still missing.

An agreement with nearly all political opposition parties was reached on 13 August last year. The Council is still appealing for the signatories to the political agreement to continue with the implementation of that agreement regardless of the interruption which occurred due to violent clashes with rebel groups. Continued implementation of the agreement also applies to the provisions for the promotion of democratic freedom and free speech. The Council is joining international efforts in promoting this process and especially in gaining the trust of the political opposition parties and civil society.

Pressure from the European Union has led to the formation of a Commission of Inquiry, in which the European Union and the International Francophone Organisation are cooperating in the role of international observers. One of the tasks of this commission is to research human rights violations during the fighting and to establish the circumstances under which some opposition leaders disappeared. The commission should complete its work within three months.

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). – I was actually in Chad on 24-30 March and met with the Minister for External Affairs and with the chairperson of the National Assembly. I am not satisfied with the answers I received in relation to Mr Saleh, who is missing, and also in relation to the Committee of Inquiry.

I just want to ask: are the international people on the inquiry and the representative from the EU there as observers? Are they actually taking part in the inquiry? My understanding is that they are there only as observers, and I am not satisfied if that is the position. I do not think we will get a true and accurate report if there are no international representatives involved in the inquiry as opposed to being observers.

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) You are right, Mr Burke. The representatives of the EU and of the International Francophone Organisation are taking part in this inquiry as international observers. In my opinion this role is sufficient to evaluate the report which we expect the Commission to submit in three months.

  President. − I have no further questions on that point, and the next question will be the last question.

  President. − Question No 9 by Liam Aylward (H-0180/08)

Subject: Peacekeeping mission to Chad

Can the Council make a comprehensive statement outlining how the EU peacekeeping mission to Chad is progressing at this time?

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) Following attacks on the capital city, N'Djamena, which Chadian rebels carried out from Sudan in January, the commanding officer, General Nash, decided on 31 January to interrupt the deployment temporarily.

This decision was accepted for two reasons, firstly to allow evaluation of the new political and security situation, and secondly to carry out an unhindered evacuation of the Europeans and of civilians from other countries. The deployment was resumed after 12 days and this 12-day break did not affect the general schedule of the operation. The initial operational capacity was reached on 15 March, and, according to the plan, the full capacity should be reached by the end of June.

Regardless of this short temporary interruption, the Council has clearly stated that it is still committed to implementation of the mandate in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolution, particularly the humanitarian mandate.

The clashes at the beginning of February had been foreseen as a possible scenario which was taken into account from the very beginning when the operation was being planned. Sadly these predictions came true, which gave extra urgency to the deployment of the EUFOR mission and the United Nations mission in Chad and the Central African Republic.

The Council is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the international community and of the European Union to improve stability and security in the region. The presence of the multidimensional structures mentioned will contribute to stabilisation of the humanitarian and political situation and prevent the crisis from spreading to neighbouring countries and regions.

As regards the incident at the Sudanese border, when one EUFOR soldier died, the commander of the operation expressed his regrets for unintentionally crossing the border and for the unfortunate action which resulted in this fatality. The commander confirmed that EUFOR would carry out its mandate in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolution, that is to say with impartiality and consistent respect for the Sudanese borders.

I should add that the inquiry into that incident is ongoing. The deployment of troops is proceeding according to plan. At this moment there are 1 800 EUFOR soldiers in Chad and the Central African Republic. When the mission becomes fully operational it will have 3 700 soldiers from 14 Member States. At the moment, negotiations with third countries about their possible contribution are under way.

  Liam Aylward (UEN). – Madam President, can I ask the Minister if he is satisfied that there is adequate logistical support available to allow full deployment of the peacekeeping mission over the next weeks and months?

Furthermore, would the Minister agree that the EU peacekeeping mission to Chad sends out a very strong message to the Sudanese Government, because many of the 300 000 refugees stranded in the camps in eastern Chad have come there to escape the genocide from the Darfur region?

  Janez Lenarčič. − (SL) The answer to the first part of Mr Aylward’s question is certainly yes. The answer to the second part is yes, provided that the mandate for the operation, which does not include Darfur, is observed.

  President. − Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

  President. – That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 19.10 and resumed at 21.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROURE
Vice-President

13. Towards a reform of the World Trade Organisation (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A6-0104/2008) by Cristiana Muscardini, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, ‘Towards a reform of the World Trade Organisation’ (2007/2184(INI)).

  Cristiana Muscardini, rapporteur. − (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to begin with sincere thanks to the secretariat, which has been very active and helpful to all members of the committee during the drafting of this text. Today we are delivering to the Commission a series of thoughts resulting from in-depth deliberations carried out in a constructive spirit by the entire Committee on International Trade.

Our committee wants a more effective and democratic World Trade Organisation equipped, in terms of its institutional operation, to perform the important task of regulating international trade. For this to happen, reform is indispensable.

The recent accession of many new members - one might just mention China and the forthcoming entry of Russia - highlights the success of a body now comprising 152 countries. However, precisely on account of its increased size, some thought needs to be given to a reorganisation of the WTO.

In the report we emphasise the key reasons why the WTO and trade multilateralism require a new, stronger, more dynamic and democratic structure. A regular feature on our agenda is the Doha Round negotiations: we know that an agreement is always just around the corner but keeps escaping our grasp. The Committee on International Trade, conscious of this problem, therefore reiterates its support for those negotiations, which ought to lead to more balanced, fairer trade. Meanwhile we believe the time has come to look ahead to the post-Doha period in a bold, ambitious frame of mind.

In delivering our thoughts to the Commission today, we call on the Community executive to be equally bold and ambitious by taking a political initiative in Geneva which could pave the way towards a review of the operation of certain mechanisms that are evidently not working properly at present.

The WTO’s institutional structure could be improved by distinguishing between activities connected with the negotiation of new international rules and commitments or activities relating to the implementation of existing agreements. The principle of consensus is and should remain the norm for ministerial conferences, but it might be possible to devise methods other than unanimity for procedures leading to final decisions in an organisation which, having been enlarged, requires different mechanisms. Such mechanisms have been envisaged for Europe; now they also need to be envisaged for the WTO!

The guiding criterion for the Doha Round has been to involve all member countries in negotiations on a whole range of matters, whereas in such a broad-based organisation efforts should be made to develop a plurilateral approach incorporating a form of ‘variable geometry’. We have talked about this in the past for Europe; now it is needed at the WTO!

Development is an important topic, and in recent years the group of developing countries has become increasingly large and diverse. It includes emerging economies as well as countries which in effect have already ‘emerged’, such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa. It would be appropriate, therefore, for the sake of real developing countries, to reclassify countries into clearer and more homogenous groups on the basis of their respective economic situation, and to require all countries to meet their responsibilities in keeping with their economic strength.

The WTO secretariat, while being highly regarded for its professionalism and competence - and we consulted it many times during our months of work - has a relatively limited establishment plan. It would be appropriate to strengthen the secretariat’s role and enable it to take initiatives and suggest compromises. Strengthening the secretariat means making it more representative in terms of geographic coverage, so that it feels itself to be the hub, the driving-force of the Organisation's activity, in the interest of all members, including above all those developing countries which at present are paid insufficient attention for them to be able to achieve real growth.

As concerns transparency and the parliamentary dimension of the WTO, the transparency of international dispute settlement proceedings needs to be increased so as to improve the WTO’s external image. The promotion of a parliamentary dimension should draw on the existence of the Parliamentary Conference on the WTO, enhancing it to form a fully-fledged parliamentary assembly with advisory powers lending legitimacy to its proceedings.

It is vital for there to be consistency and coordination with other international organisations. To this end, relations with the International Labour Organisation and with certain UN agencies need to be strengthened, since major international social and environmental issues must not be beyond the bounds of WTO activity.

Above all else, we should not forget that the dispute settlement system is a unique feature of the WTO. Unless a way is found to streamline and accelerate these proceedings, there is a risk that disputes may drag on for years, with detrimental effects on society, member countries and consumers. For this reason we would make a cordial appeal to the Commission to be as bold as the parliamentary committee has been in identifying new rules to streamline the World Trade Organisation for the future.

  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, the Commission is grateful to Parliament for this insightful and timely report.

Making sure the WTO can respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing global economy should be a major priority for the European Union. In addition, in the light of the current economic difficulties that many WTO members are facing, a strong multilateral institution is more essential than ever to counter the call for beggar-thy-neighbour protectionist policies.

The report recognises the central importance of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). The Commission wishes to reiterate that any initiative in Geneva with regard to the future of the WTO will have to be calibrated and rooted in what we hope will be a successful outcome of the DDA.

Today, during what could be the final phase in the DDA negotiations, no WTO members would have the political willingness and/or the administrative resources to engage in a meaningful reflection on the reform of the WTO. We do expect and hope that this situation will evolve towards a final DDA deal to be signed before the end of 2008. This will also open the gates to a debate on the future of the WTO, a debate that will be highly dependent on whether the DDA is concluded successfully or not.

As to the ideas expressed in the report, the Commission shares most of them in principle, even if it is clear that some proposals put forward in the motion for a resolution will face strong resistance from certain WTO members.

With regard to institutional matters, the Commission remains supportive of enhancing the parliamentary dimension of the WTO and of other ideas, like granting additional resources to the WTO Secretariat and expanding its tasks, as well as strengthening the WTO active transparency mechanisms and to monitor and supervise effectively the application of the rules.

We note the call for openness in the dispute settlement procedures and would like to underline that it was based on our initiative, that some hearings in WTO cases involving the European Union have been open to the public.

As to the substantive proposals put forward in the report, the need to integrate non-trade concerns within the scope of WTO rules will remain a guiding principle of European Union policy within the multilateral framework, but also in the framework of its bilateral negotiations recently launched on the basis of the Global Europe Communication, and unilateral initiatives in favour of developing countries. The new unilateral system of tariff concessions in favour of developing countries, the General System of Preferences Plus, is an example of that.

The relation between trade policy and labour and environment will surely be an important area, and other trade subjects might appear on the agenda.

The shaping of a new multilateral policy after the conclusion of the Doha Round will be one of the most stimulating and difficult challenges for European trade policy. Parliament will take on an ever-growing role in designing and driving such policy, in particular once the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.

The Commission, and my colleague Mr Mandelson in particular, is looking forward to engaging with you in open and constructive dialogue in order to reach solid and realistic conclusions aimed at strengthening the WTO and the whole multilateral trade system.

  Johan Van Hecke, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. − (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, our Committee on Development fully supports the arguments by the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, in favour of a radical reform of the World Trade Organisation. In 2001 the Sutherland report started a very lively debate in the WTO itself on its institutional reform, a debate that unfortunately came to an end far too quickly. Some people do not think the debate on reform is appropriate at present. They want to wait for the outcome of the Doha development agenda before having a fundamental debate on the institution as such. In our view, however, the two are not mutually exclusive.

From the point of view of development, we would like to see a new differentiation between the developing countries in the WTO, based on the development needs of each of the countries rather than country categories. Mrs Muscardini has already explained why that is necessary. Not only is greater transparency required in the WTO, better cooperation with other international organisations, such as the International Labour Organisation and UNCTAD, is also essential. The proposal in the Sutherland report for funding arrangements for technical assistance for the least developed countries to be regarded as a contractual right, so that they can play a full part in the multilateral trading system, is essential as far our committee is concerned. Finally, dispute settlement, in which, for the reasons we all know, developing countries often come off worst, also needs to be reviewed as Sutherland has advocated.

In short, reform of the WTO is crucial, not just to reinforce its legitimacy with all its members, including the very poorest, but, I think, also to safeguard multilateralism.

  Gunnar Hökmark, Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. − Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on International Trade for this report. I think it is worthwhile, when we discuss the WTO, also to underline the fact that globalisation and free trade have given millions and millions of people new opportunities. In the last two decades, we have seen more progress in the fight against poverty than the world has ever seen before.

This underlines the need to safeguard a stable framework of fair and multilateral rules for free trade. This is the main task of the WTO and it is also why it is important to have a strong and strengthened WTO. We need to ensure that we can have more international trade and competition without distortions. This is why the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has pointed to the need to reduce state aid, to remove non-tariff trade barriers and to help developing countries to be in a better position in the negotiations regarding the multilateral framework and the rules of free trade.

This underlines once again why we need a strong WTO and a strong Secretariat – in order to take decisions and to uphold the rules, but also in order to develop the multilateral trade system.

If we succeed in having a strong WTO and a strong Secretariat, we will do an important thing to safeguard the opportunities for global trade to develop in a framework of free and fair rules. That is our task – nothing more and nothing less.

In that sense, it is also important to highlight some of the things that need to be done: we need to increase free trade in services; we need to increase openness in financial services; we need to ensure that we can have more free trade in agriculture. When we discuss increasing food prices, we can see the importance of opening up the markets.

But we will never succeed in doing this without a strong WTO and without the opportunity to uphold a strong framework that is good for the developing countries, that can give poor people new and better opportunities and that can also help us all benefit from the opportunities of free trade.

  Georgios Papastamkos, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Madam President, at first sight it is strange that we should be debating the reform of the WTO in the wake of the extended deadlock of the Doha Round negotiations. Nevertheless, it is well worth debating the operation and the future of the WTO because this deadlock is due to structural and institutional problems, and shortcomings in the system of world trade. The report by Mrs Muscardini also demonstrates this.

In my view, the major challenges of the attempted reform are threefold. Firstly, there must be the greatest possible and mutually profitable liberalisation of commercial exchange, for this is a tried and tested provider of economic growth. The objective certainly remains the equal distribution of benefits among the members of the WTO and the harmonious incorporation of developing countries into the world trade system.

Secondly, the challenges are to be found in the institutional arrangements required to guarantee the consent, unified commitment, democratic legitimacy, transparency and effectiveness of an organised world trade governance. Thirdly, the appropriate balance must be found between commercial and non-commercial issues.

The WTO member states have every right to apply restrictive trade measures in a bid to protect the environment, public health and consumers. A typical example is the cases brought before the WTO’s tribunals by trading partners against the EU, owing to GMOs and the ban on beef imports containing hormones originating from the USA and Canada. It should, however, be understood that the solution does not lie in overloading the WTO with additional responsibilities, but linking mutual support and consistency with goals and actions, both by the WTO and other international organisations.

Ladies and gentlemen, the WTO’s mission is not to cover operational gaps left by other specialised bodies in the UN system. The global community is undergoing both a worrying financial and economic crisis, and an undocumented food catastrophe. In the face of these two scourges, cosmetic changes, such as the lifting of barriers, is not enough. Global challenges demand global understanding, systematic convergence and a coherent regulatory regime. This applies to social responsibility, environmental protection and economic competitiveness.

  Harlem Désir, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, it is essential to complete the Doha Round but it is also essential to examine once again the functioning of the WTO. Every day we can see that it is beset by problems concerning its efficiency, legitimacy and interaction with the other bodies of the multilateral system.

To some extent it was inevitable that, just over 10 years after its creation, its operating mechanisms would need to be reviewed. By changing from the GATT to the WTO, the multilateral trading system did not just change in dimension; in some regards it changed in nature, too. The trade rules were extended to a considerable range of new areas: services, intellectual property, investment, non-tariff barriers. New member countries joined the original ones and this enlargement introduced a diversity, a disparity of situations and Member States, with different resources and different problems. All of that obviously means that, in addition to the efforts to complete the negotiations on the Development Round, the necessary reforms have to be examined.

I welcome the work carried out by our rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the fact that we were able to cooperate with her and with the other groups. I would like to emphasise several points in this extremely important report, which, I hope, will be adopted by a large majority of this House tomorrow.

The first element is the balance in terms of international standards and the establishment of new relations between the WTO and the other international organisations. You will see in the report that we obviously mention the interaction with environmental issues, health issues – and this is clearly vital, as seen in the case of generic medicines and intellectual property – but also with social issues. We cannot fail to discuss this topic in the WTO.

Cooperation between the ILO and the WTO, which was resumed by the Directors-General of the two organisations, must go much further and the European Union must act as the driving force in this respect. We are putting forward two specific proposals: the first is that the ILO should be granted observer status in the WTO, as is the case for the International Monetary Fund; the second is that the WTO should set up – and the Union should propose this – a committee on trade and decent employment, modelled on the Committee on Trade and Environment, which has enabled a great deal of progress to be made on the interaction between environmental and trade rules.

Secondly, I would like to emphasise the aspects of the report that encourage the WTO to give more resources to the weakest members, to the least developed countries, to ensure equal, effective and efficient participation in all the negotiations and in all the committees in which future agreements and trade policies are shaped.

Thirdly, we also stress the importance of external transparency and the possibility of civil society, parliamentarians and a truly dynamic parliamentary dimension playing a greater role in the WTO. We want to see a genuine parliamentary assembly. At present, a Parliamentary Conference meets alongside the WTO. The Director-General has recently addressed it and the trade ministers, too, but we want it to be recognised, which is why we are putting forward very specific proposals, for instance in relation to the appeal body and on dispute settlement. Since these proceedings are similar to those in a court or tribunal, they should take place in public and the documents should be publicly available. I also believe that that would help to dispel certain myths and make the organisation more transparent.

Finally, the secretariat’s resources represent another important issue, which has been highlighted. The WTO’s budget today is USD 135 million: six times less than that of the IMF and almost 10 times less than that of the World Bank. It employs around 600 staff, a figure that is again much lower than that of the other multilateral organisations. As a result, increasing the resources of a WTO that is better incorporated in the system of multilateral organisations is, in my opinion, one of the conditions for better trade rules that promote development.

  Mariela Velichkova Baeva, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (BG) The dynamic process of economic and financial integration on a global scale is a determining factor for the difficult international economic environment. Analyses by leading world organisations on macroeconomic policies and global trends indicate that the coming ten years will see high levels of political and economic insecurity. At present, certain risks loom large such as rising energy prices the dynamic movement of which affects prices of agricultural products, and taken together these factors generate an inflationary pressure and food insecurity, limited infrastructure capacity to transport supplies which are vital for international trade, financial turmoil. I draw your attention to these risks and insecurities not because I want to deprive you of your restful sleep but because I want to stress some of the parameters of international economic environment and the need to implement a policy to adjust imbalances and support vulnerable economies. Let me recall that two of the main industries most affected by trade liberalisation are manufacturing and agriculture, and rising food prices have caused violent protests in many regions around the world.

To respond to the economic and political realities, the World Trade Organisation, as a trade system with rules which are binding on international trade, ought to make improvements to its rules of operation, organisational structure and decision-making procedure, and exhibit a more pragmatic institutional flexibility and adaptability. And in doing so, it should, of course, take account of the fact that to negotiate in a format of 150 states at various levels of development, having different structures of their economies and implementing various reforms in economic sectors is quite a challenging endeavour. However, if options are proposed by Sofia, Cotonou, Santiago, Brussels, the debates in Geneva are the mechanism to arrive at agreements which should increasingly remove barriers.

  Seán Ó Neachtain, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (GA) Madam President, agriculture should not lose out in a World Trade Organisation agreement. Commissioner Mandelson is currently negotiating a very uneven deal, which would be detrimental to European farmers and the entire EU agri-food sector.

It seems to me that the US electoral calendar is dictating the timetable for the WTO negotiations. Such nonsense should not be tolerated. The content and substance of the agreement is far more important than any election.

Although Ireland is the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world, it would be badly hit by this agreement. The domestic beef and lamb market in Ireland, which is currently valued in excess of EUR 2.5 billion, will be undermined by the WTO agreements. The reduction in import tariffs of up to 70% on beef and lamb products being proposed by Mr Mandelson is simply too much.

10,000 farmers marched on the streets of Dublin last week in protest against President Barosso’s visit to the city. Mr Barosso knows the full wrath of the Irish farmers and it is time he reined Commissioner Mandelson in.

Finally, it is imperative that we reach an agreement in the World Trade Organisation – an agreement that would be to everybody’s satisfaction; an agreement that would benefit Europe, farmers and agriculture; and an agreement that would safeguard food sources.

  Caroline Lucas, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group . – Madam President, the Green Group certainly supports the general lines taken in this report, especially the call for more consistency between WTO rule-setting, the work of UN agencies and the existing social, environmental and human rights covenants. We believe that it must include an observer status for the ILO, as well as measures against social and ecological dumping.

We also support the role of parliamentary scrutiny in order to mitigate the WTO’s lack of accountability and legitimacy, as well as the need to develop the WTO dispute settlement on the basis of international environmental and social law, ensuring that it has real sanctioning capacities.

I am concerned, though, that the report fails to acknowledge that the failure of the Doha Round is precisely rooted in the shortcomings of the WTO as an organisation. These are not two separate things. The stalling of the Doha Round is completely linked to the systematic abuses of its decision-making processes by some powerful countries and the resulting alienation of the weaker countries.

I think the report also fails to recognise that it required nothing less than a revolution on the part of developing countries in Cancún in 2003 and of some of the emerging countries prior to Hong Kong in order to begin to end the old feudal system on which the WTO has been running for far too long. I think it is clear that we should stop waiting until we have an outcome from the Doha Round and immediately start with the reform of the WTO: reform both of its procedures and also of its policies, because reform of process alone is not enough. We need to look at a whole range of rules that are now completely out of date in the 21st century, facing new challenges like climate change.

So we need to look at rules like the one on PPMs, for example: the prohibition of distinguishing between products on the basis of which they have been produced. Such discrimination is crucial if we are able to support and promote things like energy efficiency, for example, and fewer emissions.

We also want to see a complete refocusing of the dispute settlement proceedings, and I would commend to my colleagues an amendment that the Greens have put down which asks very specifically for a new way of looking at the dispute settlements mechanism, ensuring that it is rooted in the principles of the UN Charter and that it is separated out of the current WTO form.

  Jacky Hénin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, the only thing we will agree on is the urgent need to revolutionise the WTO.

The WTO, like the IMF, is an illegitimate, anti-democratic and dangerous organisation as far as the people’s interests are concerned. It was initially set up to ensure the financial and industrial hegemony of the United States and major transnational groups.

The Union has, of course, slavishly put itself at the beck and call of this system, in the hope of gathering a few crumbs from the table of the American master. This unbridled free trade has today turned against its founders and the planet’s centre of economic gravity has swung towards the East and Asia in particular, resulting in the most terrible financial and food crises the world has ever experienced.

There are few countries that yesterday were classed as emerging nations, went on to become predators and then renounced their role as predators in the name of some benevolent objective or another, with the entire global trading system built around the WTO encouraging them to continue along that path. The rules for all players are to get rich as quickly as possible, irrespective of the means, including speculation on medicines or basic foodstuffs.

In the Union the inequalities have exploded and the working and middle classes are getting poorer and poorer. The food crisis affecting the poorest populations is a direct consequence of the WTO’s policy aimed at destroying subsistence crops to the benefit of export crops. Biofuels are merely the easy scapegoat of a mercenary system that must be revolutionised as soon as possible.

I want to take this opportunity to denounce the irresponsible comments of Mr Mandelson, who called for further deregulation of the agricultural markets at a time when the World Food Programme is highlighting the surge in food prices and calling it, and I quote, ‘a silent tsunami threatening to plunge more than 100 million people into hunger’. Does Mr Mandelson thus want to go down in history under the shameful epithet of someone who was responsible for starvation?

The WTO must therefore be revolutionised in order to curb speculation and support producers rather than a minority of profiteers benefiting the global financial markets, so as to encourage the populations to become independent in terms of food and industry and to urge the nations to cooperate rather than compete.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, from the report it seems that the EU requires all Member States to reach a consensus in WTO negotiations or to justify the position in writing. So the UK, for example, has to go along with the rest of the EU. We have to toe the line. Put simply, it means that, in reforming the WTO, Britain will be more closely forced to trade with such other countries as the EU allows. But we are world traders. We have been doing it for centuries. We have a great deal of expertise in global trading. For instance, our trade with the USA is more than France and Germany put together. But EU countries do not seem to want to take advantage of our experience, so we are already constrained by EU trade agreements, and that is ruining Britain’s global trading reputation. We are not allowed to trade sufficiently with our traditional partners in the British Commonwealth. That is not exclusive trade. We would not try to stop other European countries from joining us in trading with our Commonwealth friends. It would be of benefit to all concerned. EU countries would prosper, and many Third World countries would find their living standards rising. The WTO was set up to promote trade and friendship, and the EU keeps on saying it wants to help the disadvantaged. Well, one way to start is to widen trade links, not cut them off.

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) There are not many people who would doubt the importance of the WTO but there is also almost no one who would be in doubt about the need to reform this organisation, whose main aim is to combat poverty and provide aid to developing countries.

The basis for the reform is to be the report by Mr Peter Sutherland. As we know, Mr Sutherland at present heads two supranational giants: BP and Goldman Sachs International. Other members of his team are former diplomats, businessmen and academics; none of them known for their criticism of the present system.

With due respect for all these gentlemen, I would like to ask: whose interests will the WTO reform proposed by them protect? Will it protect the interests of developing countries or the interests of supranational companies? What kind of a signal is this for developing and less developed countries?

As we all know, trust is important in economic as well as political matters. The WTO is not only an economic but also a political institution, which is why trust among members is important. However, will people in developing countries believe that the gentlemen in supranational corporations have their welfare at heart? Why play into the hands of the opponents of the WTO and put the image of this institution at stake?

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE). – (FR) Madam President, at a time when the negotiations under the Doha Round are losing direction and getting bogged down, the issue of the WTO’s operation is more relevant than ever.

Is it not possible to move beyond this impasse by reforming the WTO? Failing an agreement on the substance, could the process for achieving such an agreement be improved? This revival of the WTO seems possible and will enable it to operate and make decisions more effectively.

Two levels of reforms are envisaged: those aimed at improving the negotiating procedure and those aimed at improving the WTO’s legitimacy, a key factor of its organisation. To this end, it is important to emphasise the parliamentary dimension in the WTO and to make the most of us, the citizens’ legitimate representatives, thereby making globalisation issues more transparent and democratic.

Much work is needed to ensure the consistency of international policies. There is no point in eliminating the obstacles at the borders if behind them lie obstacles to investment, disdain for social rights and infringements of environmental standards. An effective WTO is therefore essential to guarantee the objective of more trade and liberalisation regulated by the markets. However, rules do not mean protectionism. In fact, liberalisation without any safeguards is not the solution to all evils, particularly those we are experiencing today as a result of the rise in the cost of agricultural raw materials and the consequent spread of hunger.

The Falconer proposal to reduce customs duties is thus unacceptable for our European agriculture and would have untold consequences on the agricultural production of the poorest countries.

Moreover, in order to conclude the Doha Round, it is essential to restore balance to the negotiations and reach genuinely reciprocal agreements on market access. We are not yet ready to sacrifice our agriculture and our role as contributors to food security just to obtain, shamefully, a few reductions in industrial tariffs.

  Kader Arif (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the debate this evening on Mrs Muscardini’s report on the reform of the World Trade Organisation.

The food crisis that is currently hitting the developing countries hard illustrates perfectly the urgent need for better regulation of global trade. This should come from a reformed WTO that is capable of controlling globalisation prices and promoting fairer trade rules. This crisis is structural, not cyclical. It is a sign that serious problems are diverting global trade from what should be its main objective: ensuring the development of all, notably the poorest countries on the planet.

A number of theories have been put forward to try to explain the origin of this crisis and I do not doubt their relevance. However, I think that collectively we should ask ourselves a number of questions. Would this crisis have been as extensive if the priorities of the developing countries had been given greater consideration in the WTO? If there had been better coordination of the WTO and other international organisations such as the UNDP and the FAO? If our free trade agreements had not encouraged the developing countries to specialise in single crops for export, to the detriment of their traditional subsistence crops and food self-sufficiency? If we had listened to the African countries and supported them in the WTO when they asked that action on the price of basic products be included in the current round of negotiations? In this respect, I must point out that Article 38 of the GATT requires all WTO members to stabilise and improve the situation of the markets for primary products, which are of particular importance for developing countries.

In order to deal with the current problems and improve the efficiency and legitimacy of the WTO, this report proposes several measure. In order to ensure that the voices, the points of view and the interests of developing countries are better heard and, indeed, taken into account, it emphasises the need to introduce a more democratic system of decision-making and better representation in the WTO secretariat, which must also be provided with additional financial and human resources.

In order to guarantee greater transparency of the organisation’s debates and work, provision should be made for better information, dialogue between the organisation and representatives of civil society, and public access to meetings, particularly for the dispute settlement procedure.

Finally, the WTO’s parliamentary dimension, which guarantees the democratic legitimacy and transparency of negotiations, must be strengthened. That includes, in particular, the creation of a WTO parliamentary assembly with consultative powers.

In addition to these measures, the very aims of the multilateral trading system must be reviewed with a view to ensuring consistency with the other international organisations. Only a committed reform in this regard will allow us to conclude a Doha Round that is truly working towards development and towards achievement of the Millennium Goals. I would point out in this respect that the first of these goals is the eradication of poverty and hunger; sadly the current situation reminds us that our commitments remain unfulfilled.

  Daniel Dăianu (ALDE). – Madam President, I wish to stress that the reform of the WTO has to be embedded into a reshaping of the whole institutional set-up which deals with the governance of global challenges.

Just look at the effects of global warming and the financial crisis of huge economic imbalances. Open trade has to be fair. In addition it has to be linked with policies that help poor countries to develop, through agriculture in particular. The formidable rises in food prices are going to fuel protectionism and restrictions unless we focus on developing food production throughout the world.

The rises in the prices of basic commodities has compounded a very complicated general state of affairs. Food will increasingly be seen as a national security problem both in wealthy and poor countries. Therefore the reform of the CAP, the EU development aid policy and the energy policies have to be examined by considering the dramatic changes in the international context.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to draw attention to three issues in the context of this debate.

Firstly, despite being members of the WTO, many countries are not complying with social, environmental and animal welfare standards. As a result, their manufacturing costs are lower. Unfortunately, however, it is then impossible to compete with products processed within those economies. This aspect must be taken into account when improving access to the European market for third country goods, otherwise many European manufacturing sectors will simply cease to exist.

Secondly, the European market is continuing to open up to agricultural products from third countries in exchange for those countries making concessions for exports of industrial products and services from Europe. Europe’s agricultural potential is therefore being weakened.

Thirdly, I fully support Mrs Muscardini’s suggestions concerning the establishment of a WTO parliamentary assembly, changes in the classification of countries into developed and developing, the need for closer cooperation between the WTO and the UN, and departure from the principle of consensus especially at the level of working groups and committees within the WTO framework.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Mr President, I would very much like to say a lot about my ideas on the reform of the WTO, but instead I would rather ask the Commission a number of specific questions to which I would like answers. The questions illustrate the points we have to take into account in the debate on WTO reform, in addition to the procedural reforms, such as transparency, that have already been mentioned.

In the context of climate change, there is more and more pressure to use biofuels. I do not want to get into the debate on whether that is good or bad here, but I am raising the following questions regarding European Union obligations under the WTO. The EU climate change package contains a number of environmental criteria that biofuels have to meet. However, I and many of my colleagues would like to see social criteria applied, such as the minimum wage and the prevention of child labour. Is that compatible with WTO requirements? If not, are we not then being forced into a position of accepting child labour and underpayment? I have another question about the trade in GMO food. I believe that the Cartagena Protocol leaves it to the Member States to decide whether to approve GMOs. Is that compatible with the WTO and, if not, how are you going to resolve that? Parliament has indicated that the majority of its members are opposed to the trade in sealskin. Canada is now threatening to challenge that through the WTO. How do you think the wishes of the majority of the population in the EU can be upheld on that issue? I think that those questions are very important and they need to be taken into consideration in the reform.

  Patrick Louis (IND/DEM). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, trade between nations is a good thing. Free trade is desirable, but today the world has changed and the WTO’s rules are ill-adapted and in many cases need to be amended.

The very nature of international trade has changed. In the past trade was based on complementarity: we sought what we did not have and exported any surpluses. That order made nations prosperous. Today, however, social dumping reigns. We abandon what we know how to do in order to import what somebody else is doing cheaper, not because it is more profitable, but because there are less costs, less taxes, less social constraints.

This WTO order allows the poor countries, the poor in the rich countries, to make the rich in the poor countries even richer. It is less and less based on solidarity or on mutual agreements between nations; rather it is an order that is disrupting nations and creating a conflict between the winners and the losers.

The WTO rules therefore have to be changed. They must restore the Community preference and revive the spirit of the Treaty of Rome, which established the common external tariff. That was not over-cautious protection, but fair compensation in the face of social dumping. The founding fathers were not always wrong. The WTO must incorporate the erratic exchange rate fluctuations in its evaluation of trade constraints. It is unacceptable for the yuan to remain so low when the country has such a high foreign trade surplus. It is outrageous that EADS loses a billion euro every time the dollar falls 10 cents against an ideological euro.

In conclusion, the future of truly free trade reminds us that we have a lot to do before we can sit back. On the one hand, we need to restore the border as a condition of the policy and, thus, freedom for the people; on the other hand, we need to allow the monetary and financial policy to take a back seat to the real economy, the productive economy, for it is that economy alone that allows the people to live here in freedom.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, the WTO has many flaws but surely its most ludicrous defect is the unfair advantage which it gives to China, India and Brazil by affording them the favourable status of developing countries. They once were emerging economies but today they have very definitely emerged and can compete with the best. Indeed, so successful are they that they are world leaders in several fields. Yet, inexplicably, we give them a free ride as developing countries and in consequence accept lower standards and commitments from them.

There is little wonder that my constituents often see the WTO as not meeting or serving their interests, a feeling which is accentuated when they watch unmatched concession after concession on agricultural issues by Commissioner Mandelson.

Commissioner, getting the right deal is more important than getting a deal. It will not be the right deal if it washes away our agri-food industry under an incoming tide of cheap imports from countries we treat more favourably than their robust economic capacity requires.

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, an institution that is not operating properly must be reformed to ensure that it serves all stakeholders and consumers correctly. We do support free trade, but unfortunately the latter is often accompanied by the temptation to succumb to greed. A control mechanism must be established as trade is liberalised, and that is the purpose of a strong World Trade Organisation operating correctly. International trade has now developed to such an extent, and become so swift and wide-ranging that good coordination is required. The European Parliament cannot stand idly by. In my heart of hearts I therefore firmly believe that Mrs Muscardini's work on reforming this organisation will serve to meet these expectations and result in an international body able to steer trade along a clear and well defined course.

  David Martin (PSE). – Madam President, firstly I would like to congratulate Ms Muscardini on an excellent report.

The WTO does still have a significant role to play in the world and still plays its role well, but it needs to be modernised and reformed. One of the key reforms, I believe, is to bring parliamentary democracy to the WTO. We need a parliamentary assembly that meets regularly and monitors the work that is going on around the negotiating table at the WTO.

We also need to update the WTO rules to ensure that environmental sustainability and climate change are taken into greater account in WTO negotiations and that social and labour clauses are also included in WTO negotiations. In particular, I would like to see the ILO more closely associated with the WTO’s work than it currently is.

In terms of the report as a whole, I very much support the work that Ms Muscardini has done in the Committee on International Trade.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, the common market and unrestricted trade are key prerequisites to economic development. The term unrestricted does not, however, mean unregulated and lacking any principles determining conditions for trade exchange whilst providing for competitiveness. The need for appropriate trade regulation at world level is particularly acute in the context of globalisation. That is why the role of the World Trade Organisation is so important. The latter is a broadly based body bringing together more than 150 member countries. The WTO will be able to act more effectively if its competences are clearly defined and restricted to trade policy.

Above all else, clarity and competitiveness involve ensuring that the production process meets established standards and quality requirements regarding for instance environmental protection, work and pay conditions, and animal welfare. Competitiveness is not measured exclusively in terms of production costs and prices. As I conclude I should like to say that WTO reform is an expression of the will to work together in the interests of development and in order to combat poverty.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I wish to offer my congratulations to all concerned on this report, particularly the rapporteur.

I see – and I am liberally quoting from the explanatory statement here – that the analysis of the whole World Trade Organisation, on which the Committee on International Trade is about to embark, is going to be based very strongly on the conclusions of the Sutherland report, which, for many years, has been languishing gathering dust on a shelf. Then, apparently, when the committee draws up its own report, the Commission will have the task of taking the necessary steps in Geneva to carry through the improvements that are recommended.

What guarantee have we that any new report is going to receive any more action than the excellent Sutherland report? Will environmental and climate change considerations be part of any new WTO package? Regarding the point already made in relation to the lack of homogeneity among developing countries, and the position of China, Brazil and India at the moment, will we be distinguishing more clearly between different levels of development at that level?

And my final point is: will regional food security for all regions be a legitimate consideration?

  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for their comments and suggestions, which will be taken into account in the Commission’s thinking about the WTO reform.

The Commission shares many of the concerns expressed during the discussion and actually supports many of the proposals put forward by Ms Muscardini’s report. One has nevertheless to recognise that some of them will face strong resistance, but the Commission will certainly promote them.

In particular, the Commission fully supports the call for consistency between the WTO and other international organisations, and the calls for more transparency as well as for an increased role for parliaments, particularly in the monitoring and trade policy reviews. The Commission also shares the view that a strong WTO is in the interest of the developing countries.

I would also like to respond to Ms Liotard’s comments, which go beyond the WTO reform. I cannot go into details at this stage, but I would like to assure you that we already engage with our partners regarding child labour and other related issues, and we support the cooperation between ILO and WTO.

Finally, I would like to say that I will certainly report your comments to my colleague, Mr Mandelson, to be taken fully into consideration in the discussions with other WTO members.

  Cristiana Muscardini, rapporteur. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commission for its appreciation of the committee's work. I am likewise grateful for the assistance provided by the draftsmen of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as well as by the many colleagues who have spoken in this House. I would make the most of their political and, as it were, technical support this evening to point out to the Commission once again that no time must be wasted. Woe betide those who have time and waste it! In other words, it is true that the Doha Round may ultimately find a solution, but that solution has been postponed all too often in recent years. Now that we have a very serious food crisis on our hands, we must also remember that some of the responsibility lies with certain practices - including on the part of the European Union - which, long ago, envisaged different scenarios for the emergence of agriculture and food.

If we wish to avoid a confrontation between genuinely poor developing countries and countries that are already developed, if we wish to make the market fair - and the market can only be fair and free on the basis of rules - we need to be bold, because we cannot agree to yet another postponement if we are to defend the concept of decent work and accelerate the settlement of disputes.

The Committee on International Trade is aware of the difficulties surrounding reform of the WTO, where certain ways of working have been established over time. However, it is also aware that, in order to meet expectations in various quarters and to become a modern organisation of the third millennium, the WTO must somehow find the strength and courage to embark on the road to reform. It is up to the Commission to take on board our reflections, which this House will formally express as a political demand tomorrow by a large majority.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. – In 2001, the Doha Round negotiations had an objective to lower trade barriers around the world, permitting free trade between countries of varying prosperity.

In 2005, the EU cut prices offered to EU sugar farmers by nearly 40% due to the World Trade Organisation’s determination that it would help benefit poorer countries on the global market, such as Australia, Brazil and Thailand. Unfortunately, it had an extremely negative effect on countries within the European Union, like Ireland whose sugar industry was destroyed, and on the poorest sugar-producing nations of the African-Caribbean-Pacific countries like Mauritius, Belize and Fiji.

Now again in 2008, many of these poorest countries who suffered the impact of the EU’s sugar restructuring are now experiencing civil disturbance over the price of staples like rice and maize, which they cannot afford because they no longer have an income from sugar.

Before we embrace new dismantling measures on trade protection, we should honestly make an impact assessment on the effect that the EU could have on some of its poorest neighbours so that any more changes of this type will not be destructive again.

14. Free Trade Agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Helmuth Markov, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the recent developments in negotiations on the free trade agreement between the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council (O-0032/2008 - B6-0020/2008).

  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, some may say that negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement with the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council have lasted for 17 years. In fact, it is only since 2002 that the substance has been discussed. We the Commission, but also the representatives of the Member States in the Council, hope to finish the negotiations sooner rather than later. We know that the FTA will contribute to the deepening of relations between our regions. The FTA negotiations were conducted at an accelerated pace in 2007, culminating in Commissioner Mandelson’s visit to Doha in December 2007, which gave a significant political push. We have made good progress on all chapters and are closer than ever to an agreement.

There are, however, some outstanding issues which are important to guarantee real preferential access for the EU to the GCC market and no discrimination compared to others. These issues are export duties, some exceptions in the area of energy services, notably by the UAE, and certain horizontal provisions of the agreement, such as competition and intellectual property. A negotiating round was cancelled in January. Since then, there has been no feedback from the GCC side at all. We now hope to be able to have the next round in early May, at the same time as the EU-GCC Joint Committee meeting, which is scheduled for 6 May.

Our objective remains to make progress in the next round and to conclude the negotiations as soon as possible, hopefully in the early months of the French presidency. The Free Trade Agreement aims at creating a preferential relationship between the EU and the GCC, in line with WTO principles and disciplines. It will thus lead to the liberalisation of substantially all trade between parties. It also aims at supporting the Member States of the GCC in their policies of economic diversification through encouraging further economic reforms and offering the potential of bringing increased foreign investments, in addition to the increasing dynamics of inward investments in the region.

The FTA includes significant commitments on trade in services and investments by both sides and mutual access to public procurement markets, also in the energy and transport sectors. It covers ambitious tariff liberalisation schedules, including in the chemicals sector. Last but not least, it covers non-tariff areas, such as technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary standards or intellectual property rights.

This House has expressed concern that the Free Trade Agreement being negotiated with the Gulf Cooperation Council does not contain clauses on human rights and social and environmental standards. Let me, therefore, first of all clarify that the current draft of the EU-GCC Free Trade Agreement does include a number of non-trade clauses – on human rights, migration, counter-terrorism and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These clauses were agreed with the GCC some years ago. However, it emerged at the last round that the GCC side had some outstanding questions on the wording regarding the suspension clause linked to the application of the essential political elements of the agreement. In addition to these clauses, the preamble of the agreement refers to the need to strengthen the process of economic and social development in the GCC countries, while protecting the environment. It also refers to the fact that the parties shall not encourage foreign direct investment by lowering or relaxing their domestic environment or label standards. It also foresees consultations if it appears that an actual or proposed measure is inconsistent with these principles.

The EU-GCC FTA negotiations took into account the results and conclusions of a sustainability impact assessment study which was carried out between 2001 and 2004. This was the case, in particular, in sectors which were identified by the consultants as important for a more sustainable economic development in the GCC, namely services and some industrial sectors. Further to the request of this House, in February we provided the negotiating directives for the EU-GCC FTA, including all its updates according to the agreed procedures and in respect of the confidentiality rules.

Finally, let me just stress that the European Parliament has been regularly updated on the state of play of the EU-GCC FTA negotiations and that the European Commission will continue to keep it updated.

  Tokia Saïfi, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Madam President, the conclusion of a free trade agreement between the European Community and the Gulf Cooperation Council has been the subject of negotiations since 1988 and it would seem that they will soon be concluded for once and for all.

I welcome the recent progress because the conclusion of a free trade agreement is essential in order to increase and regulate the trade between the European Union and the Gulf states. It should thus launch a new, more dynamic era of cooperation in numerous strategic fields between two regions that are vitally important for one another, but whose relations have been lacking in substance.

The free trade agreement must help to dismantle non-tariff barriers and eliminate all public subsidies and compensation, notably for access to raw materials, in accordance with current WTO rules. The opportunities and challenges posed by the growing importance of sovereign funds should be the subject of in-depth examination, dialogue and constructive cooperation between the European Parliament and the Gulf states.

The objective here is to maintain an environment that is open to investment while making the latter more transparent. The managers of these funds must therefore be able to provide the market with additional information on the origin of their resources, their investment goals and their strategies. However, Europe must also ensure that it can attract these funds, which generate growth, innovation and jobs, in the face of the strong international competition to attract productive capital.

The conclusion of the free trade agreement will encourage the Gulf states to be more receptive to the views of their European partners and will thus enable us to diversify and accelerate our trade and exchanges.

  Carlos Carnero González, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Madam President, I firstly wish to thank the Commissioner for her explanations, and immediately state that the Socialist Group in the European Parliament feels signing the FTA with the Gulf Cooperation Council is an objective we share.

We must, in fact, do this as soon as possible. This will be to the benefit of Europe, and to the countries that comprise the GCC. It is also true, however, that the mandate for negotiating this agreement is rather old. It is a mandate which does not contain the necessary clauses to focus on today’s key issues such as human rights, employment or the environment.

I am therefore pleased to hear the Commissioner tell us that the Commission intends to do all it can to include these matters in the agreement. This would otherwise be totally incomprehensible, because we are not only talking about trade or economic exchanges.

We are all aware that these are important countries, with one of the planet’s greatest sources of wealth, oil, an essential component of our modern societies.

These countries, however, do not just have oil. They have people, men and women; men and women born in these countries, and other men and women who come from other countries to work there, and I feel that human rights are not respected in these countries as they ought to be, for example, in terms of freedom of expression or freedom of association. With respect to the women’s lack of equality, we cannot but feel ashamed and indignant when, for instance, we read news such the reports by Human Rights Watch, stating that women in some of these countries require permission from a so-called ‘guardian’, who may be a father, a husband, or even a son, to work, travel, study, or even get access to health services. This is simply unacceptable, totally unacceptable.

However, we could of course also talk about the situation that was previously mentioned of the immigrants working in those countries, who constitute a strong workforce. Are their rights guaranteed or not? Moreover, what are the environmental concerns of major oil-producing countries such as the GCC states? Are they interested in climate change or in the price of crude oil?

This must be said amicably, but in all clarity. It is for this reason that we are pleased that the resolution we will be voting on tomorrow has finally included paragraphs as important as paragraphs 17 and 19, of which we feel we are the joint authors. They refer, for example, to human rights as the subject of a clause that ought to be an essential part of the free trade agreement to be signed with the Gulf Cooperation Council, or the need for the parties to ratify the conventions of the International Labour Organisation.

We have also tabled additional amendments, which we hope the groups can support, thereby reinforcing these issues. We must be careful, however, not to send out the wrong kind of message to our allies: human rights must be defended whether or not there is any oil in the picture.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu, on behalf of the ALDE group. – (RO) The discussion on the evolution of negotiations for the Free Trade Agreement between the European Community and the Gulf Cooperation Council caught my attention, taking into account the visit I recently made to the region, together with the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with the Gulf States.

The subjects discussed during the interparliamentary meetings included the negotiation of this agreement as well.

The GCC representatives declared that Europeans were creating pressure for unlimited access to numerous investment opportunities, while the GCC is interested not only in acquiring capital, but also in the need for technology and managerial know-how.

On the one hand, the negotiations started should have been completed in 2006, but, as we say, they are continuing and the reasons are imputable to both parties.

The European Union feels that the GCC members lack coordination and reform and the latter complain of an interminable list of requirements that the Gulf States must meet.

Some of the most important were brought to mind by the Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson: market access, marking the origin of products, governmental licences, measures for protecting investment, as well as criteria for their guarantee in the GCC.

For this reason, I believe that, by concluding the Free Trade Agreement, both parties would officially commit to economic cooperation with mutually important gains: development of energy cooperation, economic and technological development of the region and, implicitly, an increased impact on environmental protection, creation of a common market and an increase in European investments are only some of them.

On the other hand, a sensitive debate in the region refers to the problem of respect for human rights. The Union has a very important role in the international economy but, at the same time, it is also one of the main promoters of the respect for fundamental human rights.

The discussions I had with the representatives of the most active NGOs in the region revealed very clearly the opportunity provided by the negotiations for the Free Trade Agreement to put pressure on the Gulf States to provide more civil and political freedoms to the citizens of these countries.

For this reason, when economic issues are negotiated, increased attention should implicitly be given to the laws regarding the respect for the rights of immigrant workers and women.

  Caroline Lucas, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, my group strongly supports calling on the Commission to supply Parliament with more information about these FTA negotiations and in particular to transmit the actual negotiating mandate and an updated sustainability impact assessment.

We also support the emphasis on the need for a strong chapter within the FTA on sustainable development, given the poor record of the Gulf States with regard to social and environmental standards. That is what makes us concerned about suggestions from the Trade DG that since the FTA negotiations with the Gulf States started a long time ago, when sustainable development issues were apparently less relevant, it is somehow now too late to burden the negotiations with new issues like human rights clauses.

I think we need to say that this is politically unacceptable and we hope that the Trade DG will keep in mind that Parliament will need to give its assent to any final results of the negotiations.

But beyond our concern about the social and environmental standards of trade within the Gulf region, we need to ask more carefully what kind of trade an FTA with the Gulf aims to liberalise. We know of course that the EU interest is about unlimited access to energy resources, about doing away with any barriers to trade like export taxes or quantitative restrictions. Of course we know the EU is trying to out-compete other industrialised and emerging economies to get the best access conditions, that the EU sees rising energy prices and wants to sell more to the region in order to redress its trade balance. Of course, this is completely inconsistent with the EU’s stated goals with regard to its policy on climate change.

But let us just imagine a different scenario: that the EU would not seek to balance its trade relations through all-out liberalisation but would use the incentive of trade imbalance to foster the development and application of renewable energy; that the EU would not participate in the international race to secure access to oil but would insist on multilateral agreements giving all countries a fair share of diminishing global resources.

In comparison to this kind of ambitious scenario that we would like to see, the insistence of Parliament on a strong chapter in the FTA on sustainable development is absolutely the minimum we need in terms of deciding whether or not this House can give its assent to the upcoming agreement.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, the importance of concluding a properly functioning free trade agreement cannot be overstated. EU exports to the GCC member states have been increasing since the 1980s. The GCC is currently the EU’s sixth largest export market and the EU is the GCC’s first trading partner. In 2005, EU exports to the GCC were around EUR 50 billion, whereas EU exports from the GCC amounted to around EUR 37 billion.

The Commission expects the trade volume to double soon after the agreement is signed. Furthermore, for the first time, as I understand, the proposed agreement foresees clauses on human rights, non-proliferation and counter-terrorism, and this is certainly to be welcomed.

Unfortunately, there has been a long delay in reaching an agreement and, when Mr Mandelson visited the region in February 2007, you said, Commissioner, that he gave the free trade agreement a push, if I quote you correctly.

I understand, however, that he went on the record, when he was there, to blame Gulf Arab protectionism as a cause of delaying the signing of the free trade agreement. Does the Commission still believe this to be the case and is this the sort of language to foster international agreements?

Despite setbacks with reaching a trade agreement, GCC member states are engaging in a positive way with the Commission on the harmonisation of airport security regulations. Passengers currently purchasing duty-free products and transferring either within the Gulf or in the European Union could potentially have their goods confiscated because of present airport liquid security restrictions.

But, thankfully, a number of Gulf Cooperation states have engaged with the Commission by applying for security recognition under Regulation (EC) No 915/2007. This, I understand, will allow passengers to transfer from third countries with their duty-free purchases, provided that the country has been recognised as secure. Through this application, they have successfully established technical and practical cooperation with the EU, and the Commission should be commended for taking action in this area.

Such an example of practical cooperation is encouraging for any broader free trade agreement that may come into force later. However, I would like to see such cooperation and agreements speeded up and extended.

An FTA should also be a way to promote scientific cooperation with the Gulf States and thereby support sustainable development in that region. At the moment, there is very little scientific cooperation between Europe and the Gulf States, even though the potential could be great.

Cooperation in science is particularly important when it comes to climate change and energy policy. The European Union currently imports about 50% of its energy needs, of which approximately 20% are sourced in the Gulf.

An FTA needs to be strengthened in the areas of combating climate change and I therefore welcome the Commission’s planned feasibility study in this area.

  David Martin (PSE). – Madam President, let me begin with the positive. Firstly, let me put on record my thanks to Mr O’Sullivan, the Director-General for Trade, who responded quickly and positively to our request for the negotiating mandates. We received them within a week or so of him coming to the committee and being asked to provide us with those mandates.

I also welcome the significant progress that is being made in these negotiations and acknowledge, as others already have as well, that this should open up the Gulf States to EU trade and should be good for EU business.

I also accept wholeheartedly that any FTA we negotiate is going to be an improvement on the 1989 Cooperation Agreement, and as you yourself, Commissioner, reminded us and Ms Doyle has just repeated, I welcome the fact that the FTA does contain a number of non-trade clauses on subjects such as human rights, migration, counter-terrorism and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

But I do regret that the social, environmental and labour clauses that we are negotiating with the Gulf States are significantly weaker than those that we are negotiating in our modern round of free trade agreements. We would not accept the standards that we appear to be prepared to accept for the Gulf States for Korea or for the ASEAN negotiations, for example.

The Commission has already told us – and we could have anticipated this – that this is because we are negotiating on the basis of an old negotiating mandate, a mandate that has not been updated since 2001. What I have not heard from anyone on the Commission, be it the Commissioner responsible, be it the DG for Trade or the Commissioner here this evening, is why we are still negotiating on the basis of an old mandate. It is difficult not to be suspicious that the Commission felt it was going to be too difficult to negotiate modern sustainability, development clauses and labour clauses with the Gulf States. Similarly, why has the sustainability impact assessment not been updated since 2004? Again, I have yet to hear convincing reasons for this.

I must say that I am particularly concerned – Mr Carnero has mentioned the situation of women, and that is a concern that I share – but I am particularly concerned about the rights of migrant workers in the Gulf States. Of course, these people make up the majority of the workforce in the Gulf States, and I do not see how in any sense they are protected by this free trade agreement. What will the Commission do to ensure that ILO core standards are respected by the Gulf States in respect of migrant workers?

Finally, Commissioner, your colleague Ms Ferrero-Waldner met the Bahrain Human Rights Society last week and raised with her a number of concerns over human rights and migrant workers. She is quoted in the Gulf Daily News as giving her full support to human rights clauses in any free trade agreement. How will the Commission plan to implement that promise?

  Kader Arif (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, as already stated, the European Union has been negotiating the conclusion of a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council for nearly 20 years.

Since then the Commission’s negotiating mandate has barely changed and has certainly not been properly updated. The result is a somewhat surprising situation whereby the Union is not using the same criteria as a basis for its negotiations with the Gulf states as it uses with its other trade partners, such as Korea or the ASEAN countries. In particular, the negotiating mandate makes no provision for inclusion in the future agreement of any clause on social standards, nor any ambitious chapter on sustainable development. The issue of respect for human rights is scarcely mentioned. Since these elements must be part of the priorities of European action, not only should they be fully integrated in the future free trade agreement, they should also be subject to suspension clauses for cases where the commitments are not fulfilled. It is the EU’s responsibility to ensure that all the trade agreements it negotiates guarantee promotion of, and respect for, the democratic principles of human rights, the conventions of the International Labour Organisation and environmental standards.

In the case of the Gulf states, special attention – and Mr Martin has just mentioned this – must be paid to the living conditions and rights of migrant workers. There are many such workers in the region to support the rapid growth there but they often work under disgraceful and unacceptable conditions.

More generally, over and above the trade that must be developed within the framework of harmonious trade relations, Europe and its Member States must step up their political and social dialogue. We must therefore implement a free trade agreement that not only does not have a negative impact on the people living in the region but, on the contrary, consolidates their political, economic and social rights. That is why it is essential, for example, to ensure that during negotiations on services, the need to guarantee a universal public service that is accessible, sustainable and cheap, and that meets high quality standards, is respected.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that it is very important to make improving our relations with the Gulf states a priority. Europe and the Gulf states have many interests in common: on the one hand, Europe is the world's strongest market, and on the other, the Gulf supplies us with resources which are unique. From that perspective, it is essential to intensify our relations with these countries with an eye to the global context.

In the WTO, we have the 'Everything But Arms' issue, and that should be the standard. We must achieve a sensible solution as quickly as possible here, as this is in both sides' interest. We should also do more to foster exchange in research, knowledge and know-how, and try to build closer links in the education sector. Joint conclusion of the Energy Charter is also important.

  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I thank the honourable Members for their comments with respect to the EU-GCC FTA negotiations. I would like to stress that the Commission will continue to update the Parliament on the state of play of these negotiations.

I was particularly struck by the honourable Members’ interest in the inclusion of a political clause in the negotiated agreement and I would like to assure you that these concerns are indeed addressed in the negotiations. I can also confirm something that was said, that this point was addressed during Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner’s visit to the Gulf region last week. In fact, Gulf countries expressed their determination to conclude the free trade agreement and recognise the importance of further flexibility on the issue.

  President. – Mrs Doyle, did you want to make a point of order?

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I will leave it now, but, as we did not use the five-minute catch-the-eye, it has been practice in other debates that, even if a Member has contributed, you can have a quick question that has arisen, so we can use all the catch-the-eye, or at least another minute, if it was there.

I will leave it now on this occasion, but it was only on that basis, as there was only one catch-the-eye tonight. I had a supplementary question for the Commissioner, but I will leave it.

  President. – Mrs Doyle, you can ask the question if you wish. The point is that you did not request it.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, really I just wanted to press home the point to the Commissioner that, given the prevarication and the delay and the cancellation of last January’s negotiations and the little contact since and the years this has been going on – with one or two meetings a year – are we convinced that there is any real will on the side of the GCC to have an FTA?

You have sort of just answered that, but is there a real will to have an FTA with the EU? Is that not a fair question, given the time we have been negotiating?

  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − I would like to simply say that we hope that there is. As you know, the meeting that was scheduled for last January did not take place, but we hope that in the forthcoming meeting in May we shall have substantial negotiations. Let us hope.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ pursuant to Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) As a member of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with the Gulf States, I would like to emphasize the importance of signing the Free Trade Agreement between the European Community and the Gulf Cooperation Council as soon as possible. The conclusion of this agreement in 2008 would constitute an essential premise to intensify the economic relations between the two regions and the need to ensure the European Union’s energy security reflects the importance and urgency of this theme.

Taking into consideration that the present trade focuses on the energy field, it is essential for the future agreement to clearly and thoroughly approach cooperation in this field and its consolidation. This would multiply and facilitate the achievement of common projects in the energy field, including with the EU Member States in the Black Sea region, which would benefit from new development and cooperation opportunities.

Therefore, it is a priority to set a well-defined schedule for completing the current negotiations, as well as to formulate the major purpose of mutual benefits, which would lead not only to strengthening the economic relations between the EU and the Gulf States, as well as consolidating stability and sustained development in general.

(1) See Minutes.

15. Zero tolerance regime for unauthorised GMOs and the economic consequences thereof (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Neil Parish, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the zero tolerance regime for unauthorised GMOs and the economic consequences thereof (O-0031/2008 - B6-0151/2008).

  Struan Stevenson, deputising for the author. − Madam President, I should first of all thank my colleague Mr Parish, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, very much indeed for giving me the opportunity of coming here at this late hour to ask this oral question. He, unfortunately, has for many months had a longstanding arrangement to go to Denmark with Commissioner Fischer Boel and had to leave for Copenhagen this afternoon. So he sends his apologies for his absence and also sends his greatest respects to Ms Vassiliou and welcomes her to the Commission.

This is a reality check. We have a very competitive and successful poultry and pig industry in the EU. They are completely unsupported. They do not receive a single farm payment; they do not receive any subsidy at all and they have to stand alone in the marketplace.

With poultry and pigs the biggest cost of production is the feed. Pigs and chickens do not graze the fields and therefore everything they eat is cereal-based. If you have an unsupported industry you must make sure that they have access to competitive feed from around the world.

In Europe we take over two years on average to license a perfectly safe GM product. Herculex, one of the few approved GM seeds, took 33 months to achieve EU approval. In the US the average approval time is half that: 15 months.

There is no excuse for this. With food prices and costs for the poultry and pig industry both rising, we cannot afford this time delay in licensing feed. We have got to speed things up.

In the US many of these GM products are by-products from the bioethanol industry and they are significantly cheaper than feeds that can be accessed here in the EU by our poultry and pig producers. So all we are doing is denying ourselves access to cheaper world market feeds, making it virtually impossible for our producers to compete and therefore we are in grave danger of haemorrhaging jobs and exporting our industry outside the EU.

Those purists who say that we must not have poultry or pigmeat produced with GM feed will not have won any kind of victory if we deny ourselves these feeds. The end result will be that we will have lost our industry to our non-EU competitors while we continue to import poultry and pigmeat from animals that have been fed on precisely the same GM feed that we have denied our producers access to. This is the politics of the madhouse.

We also need clear labelling and products so that consumers can make an informed choice. They must know if the meat they eat has been fed on GMs. With rising food prices, much GM-fed meat is cheaper and this gives consumers the choice and access to low-cost meat if that is what they desire.

The other major issue so far as feed is concerned is zero tolerance on non-GM feed coming into the EU. Again, the great hair-shirted brigade can beat their chests and say that we are making sure that there are no traces of GM products in any non-GM feed that is entering the EU. But what is the effect of zero tolerance when a shipload of non-GM soya is being loaded in Brazil to be brought to the EU? There is a chance that a very tiny residue of GM soya could be picked up through the loading equipment at the port in Brazil. When that ship docks in the EU, if even a small trace of GM soya is found, even if that soya has been licensed in the EU, the whole cargo can be turned away.

Therefore the result of the zero-tolerance regime is to reduce dramatically the amount of non-GM feed coming into the EU. So, even those poultry and pig producers who want to use non-GM feed find it incredibly difficult to access the quantities that they need, when they need them. Once again, this makes it much more difficult for them to compete fairly in open world markets.

If we really want to export our poultry and pig industry outside the EU and feed our citizens on Brazilian chicken and pork and even chicken from Thailand, all of which has been fed on GM, then the present policies of zero tolerance on non-GM feed and the appallingly slow licensing of GM feed within the EU are exactly the way to go about it.

Commissioner, we are delighted that you were so resoundingly endorsed as a Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection DG. We wish you well but we hope that you will be the first to resist the tabloid Frankenstein food mythology and put in place some policies that will allow our farmers to compete internationally on a level playing field.

  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, the Commission recognises the risk that feed imports may become more difficult and more expensive, due to asynchronous approvals of GMOs in exporting countries and in the EU. I am aware of the Agriculture and Rural Development DG study on the issue of feed shortage. I must stress that the effects of a zero tolerance policy for unauthorised GMOs on feed imports only become an issue in the event of so-called asynchronous GMO approvals. One of the key factors is the difference in the duration of the GMO approval procedure in third countries and in the EU, in combination with the lack of appropriate segregation mechanisms in exporting countries and the marketing strategies of the seed industry in these countries. The increased use of GMOs by your main trading partners in commodities also has an important influence.

Against this background, the Commission is focusing its efforts on addressing these key factors. Discussions with the European Food Safety Authority have been initiated with the aim of making efficiency gains in the duration of the authorisation procedure, without compromising on the quality of the EFSA scientific assessment. I would like to remind you of the importance in this respect of the cooperation of Member States in the Standing Committee and in the Council.

Last but not least, I would like to note that the Commission recently adopted the authorisation of GA 21 maize, which will facilitate imports with the advantageous presence of this GM event from Argentina. The Commission is also currently in the process of sending to the Council a proposal for the authorisation of a GM soya bean, after the Standing Committee failed to reach a qualified majority. This soya bean authorisation will also enable a number of feed imports and thus contribute to the temporary improvement of the feed shortage problem that the Honourable Member raises.

The EU legislative framework on GM food and feed aims primarily at ensuring the safety of the products placed on the market. This is why GM food and feed products are subject to pre-market approval. The zero tolerance approach for unauthorised GMOs currently applied by the EU has been laid down in EU legislation, having been approved by the European Parliament and the Council as the best way to protect human and animal health and the environment. It is similar to the approach followed by the vast majority of third countries, including major GMO producers.

At international level, the Commission, in close collaboration with the Member States, continues to support the development of Codex guidelines on the issue. The Commission, however, recognises the possibility of incidents of the type indicated among the reasons behind your question and recognises that such occurrences are becoming easier to detect because of constant improvements in measurement techniques. The Commission will examine whether it is appropriate and feasible to come up with an individual solution for this specific problem, in full respect of existing legislation.

In the case of the WTO complaint brought against the European Community in 2003, the corresponding panel report, concluded in 2006, did not call into question the EU legislation, but rather the way it has been implemented in the past. The Commission has managed to contain this dispute until now in the context of a regular dialogue on biotech issues with the complainants. We clearly showed the complainants that there is currently no moratorium or undue delay in the EC approval system of biotech products.

Sixteen products have been approved since the establishment of the WTO Panel, with only seven in 2007. We cannot rule out that complainants, notably the United States, will take into consideration the trade implications of the issue of advantageous presence in their decision on whether to proceed with further dispute settlement. However, the European Community would be in a good position to defend its case, and the present dialogue makes this eventuality unlikely.

  Esther De Lange, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, yesterday in this House we spoke about the rise in food prices and the effects of that in the European Union and for developing countries. Now we are here again this evening, talking about genetically modified animal feed. It might have been an idea to combine the two debates. After all, this somewhat technical subject of animal feed of course fits in with the wider debate on food safety and rising food prices. How sensible is it actually to destroy or reject whole shiploads of animal feed because they unintentionally contain traces, very small quantities, of genetically modified products? That does not seem very sensible to me, either from the point of view of the food safety I mentioned, or in the light of rising prices.

Because animal feed prices have indeed gone up considerably recently and they will do so even more if we continue to take that attitude. Many producers are seeing their costs increase as a result and I think it cannot do any harm to emphasise once again that the rising prices we keep talking about do not necessarily mean that farmers are also earning more. In fact it has already been said that, in the pigmeat sector for example, the costs of feed are going up and the margins are actually only smaller.

How can we get out of this deadlock now? Not by suddenly dealing carelessly with approval procedures. No, that is certainly not the way, but in my opinion there is a problem in two areas, and we have to find a solution. Firstly, as Mr Stevenson said earlier, it takes much longer in the European Union for a GMO to be approved: two and a half years for us, barely a year in the United States. I have taken note of what the Commission says about making EFSA more efficient, but of course that is not the whole problem. The problem also lies in the to-ing and fro-ing in the Council committees, which are then unable to achieve either a qualified majority for approval or a qualified majority against approval, and then finally, after a long tussle, the decision is passed to the Commission. So that is also part of the problem, and that procedure needs to be quicker. It is certainly not an argument for automatic approval of products, but I do think people have the right to know more quickly whether or not a product can be approved for the European market.

Secondly, we need to find a solution to the unintentional presence of genetically modified traces in animal feed, for instance through a threshold value, certainly in the case of GMOs that have already been approved by EFSA, and certainly when you consider that chops from pigs that have eaten feed outside the European Union are regularly available in our shops. Talk about unfair competition! I think it is a pity I have not heard anything from the Commission about threshold values. It refers to existing legislation. Let us be honest, though, with the labelling we are using a threshold value, so I think it is possible.

In short, producers and consumers must not become the victims of the indecision on the part of the Council committees. It is time now to offer clarity and speed.

  Bernadette Bourzai, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as its title suggests, this question deals with the economic consequences of the GMO authorisation procedure.

I would therefore like to ask the Commissioner whether the Commission has requested any studies on the causes of the rise in the price of animal feed and I would like to know, too, what proportion of the feedingstuffs imported in recent years has contained traces of GMOs not authorised in Europe and where these products came from. That would be useful in assessing the scope of these incidents.

Unlike Mrs De Lange who has just spoken, I refute the causal link drawn between the principle of zero tolerance of GMOs and the considerable increase in the price of feed. The two should not be lumped together since we know very well that this increase is due to the combination of several factors, which I will not go into here, but primarily to stock market speculation on future agricultural markets. Moreover, this increase affects all countries, including those with very flexible legislation on GMOs.

Nevertheless, it is true that European livestock farmers are in great difficulty and the main reason for this is the fact that the EU is highly dependent on feed imports. My main question is thus as follows: why are we so dependent and how should we respond? I want to ask the Commission if it has carried out an analysis of the economic consequences of the Blair House Agreement, for which the European Union gave up its own production of animal feed.

In order to reduce this dependency, there are two options, in my opinion. The first is to do everything we can to save – and I mean save – the last European fodder and protein crops and to encourage restructuring, avoiding, for example, the complete decoupling of aid during the CAP Health Check, particularly as these crops offer indisputable environmental qualities for crop rotation and, consequently, for the soil.

On the other hand, the Commission must look into diversifying our source of supply. In December 2007 I took part in a conference organised by the GM-Free Network, which demonstrated that supplies of non-GMO feed do exist and that contacts need to be established between producers and importers.

I hope that everyone is aware that consumers have a right...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jan Mulder, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I should first like to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and this plenary sitting for following up my initiative to debate this topic here this evening.

One remarkable thing is that all over the world the cultivation of genetically modified crops is on the increase, but only we in Europe are terribly scared about it. The big question is why. The Commissioner says quite categorically that that is how the legislation is and so we have to comply with it. However, if changed circumstances make it necessary to amend the legislation, the Commission will have to do that. I think it is time to do it now. I was still asking questions about it a little while ago, but one genetically modified crop is not like another. There is a big difference between transgenesis and cisgenesis. One is species-specific, the other is not. Both are covered by the same legislation and the Commission must address itself to the matter to amend the legislation from that point of view.

In my view, the crux of this whole story is zero tolerance. There are few situations in the world where you can require absolutely zero tolerance. There must always be a possibility of leaving a certain margin of difference. If you drive too fast for a distance of 50 kilometres, in most countries you have a margin of tolerance of about three kilometres before you are fined. Why is that not possible for imported goods? Why is a tolerance of, for instance, 0.8% or 0.9% not possible? Can the Commission give me a clear answer on that?

I also welcome the fact that talks are under way with EFSA to shorten procedures without endangering quality, but has EFSA indicated yet whether or not that is possible? Talks alone are not enough, because time is pressing.

There is also another point. Perhaps the Commission can explain to me how I, as a politician, can tell the general public that we can consume a whole lot of products here that we are not allowed to produce. We can import without restriction from all over the world any products from animals that are fed products which are banned here. What is the point of that? What is the explanation? Perhaps the Commissioner can suggest an idea to me for the forthcoming election campaign.

Finally I should like to ask what are the consequences of the attitude of the Commission as regards the WTO? Can we simply do this?

  Janusz Wojciechowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, there are three areas in which GMOs may prove dangerous.

The first of these is public health. There are more and more indications that GMOs are potentially dangerous to human health, but these indications are being disregarded. Hard evidence of the damaging effects of GMOs may emerge at any moment. There was a time when there was no evidence of the harmful nature of asbestos, and when the evidence did emerge the cost was enormous. Billions had to be spent on removing the asbestos. The difficulty with GMOs is that if their use becomes widespread, it will be impossible to get rid of them.

The second area is the environment. Many scientists believe that GMOs may have disastrous consequences for the environment. This is one of the reasons why a store of traditional seeds has been created deep in ice on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, in case traditional seeds are damaged by increased use of GMOs.

The third danger relates to the economy. Increasing the use of GMOs is a way of making farmers financially dependent on large biotech concerns. Farmers will grow GMO crops under conditions imposed by powerful concerns that hold the patents for the seeds.

Europe is not hungry at present. Food is becoming more expensive, but the Union's agricultural policy continues to consist of imposing administrative limits on agricultural production. Europe does not need to seek highly intensive technologies for food production. Instead, Europe should opt for the production of healthy food using traditional methods.

Of course, there is also the problem of competition. On this matter, I fully agree with Mr Stevenson and other previous speakers. Our farmers should not be the only ones affected by a ban on GMO crops and the use of GMO feed. Such a ban should be accompanied by a ban on the import of both plant and animal products containing GMOs. A clear principle must be applied, namely that producers exporting their products to the European market will be subject to the same requirements imposed on our own producers.

  Caroline Lucas, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group . – Madam President, I would like to start by strongly challenging the assumption that seems to lie behind this oral question. Trying to link the rise in animal feed prices in Europe and the corresponding crisis in the livestock industry to the EU’s GM laws in general, and its zero-tolerance policy in particular, is completely false and disingenuous.

It is certainly true that times are hard for livestock farmers, but I make the case that this has nothing to do with Europe’s GM policies and everything to do with a combination of factors, including poor weather conditions leading to reduced harvests, deregulation of markets, increased demand by countries like China, the rapid and misguided increase in biofuel production and growing financial speculation.

Much is also being made by the GM industry of DG Agriculture’s report on the potential impact of the EU’s GM regime on the availability and price of animal feed. The worst-case scenario in the report rests on the assumption that Brazil will rapidly commercialise a GM soya bean variety not approved in the EU. But absolutely no evidence is presented that Brazil is even considering new GM soya beans.

The report finds that US approvals will be unaffected by EU policy and that Brazil and Argentina will, in fact, be much more cautious about approving new GM crops that could otherwise damage their exports to the EU. For example, Argentina has introduced a certification scheme for maize exports to the EU, precisely to avoid unapproved traits.

Moreover, there is no evidence either of major distortion of competition caused by imports of meat from animals that may have been fed with GMOs not authorised in the EU.

So, frankly, all of these questions are ill-informed and tendentious. But I do have some questions of my own with regard to any proposed threshold for EU non-approved GMOs. First, how can the Commission be sure that EU non-approved GMOs are safe?

Second, in the case of damage, which institution or company will have to pay? The EU, which allows such contamination? The company, which has developed the GMO but has so far no valid market approval? Or the company responsible for the import?

Finally, should such a threshold also apply to genetically engineered plants that produce substances like pharmaceuticals? What assessment has been carried out on the contamination of daily food with active pharmaceutical substances?

I look forward to hearing full answers to these crucial questions at the end of this debate.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, you and I really know too little about the health risks of genetically modified organisms. Do we therefore want to allow such GMOs – I call them messed around food – simply because that meets an economic need? Not as far as I am concerned. For me the real priorities are public health, the environment and biodiversity. Brussels already requires countries to approve certain GMOs, even when they are not willing to do so. That is at odds with the Cartagena Protocol, under which countries may reject new GMO products if they have doubts about their safety. Let the Member States decide for themselves which risk products they will allow.

I am not the only one to protest. Many citizens are worried about GMOs. We have seen that in Poland, Romania, Austria and Cyprus. Resistance to the Monsanto experimental fields is growing in places like Raalte and Gemert-Bakel in the Netherlands,. There is a real risk of modified seeds blowing over from Monsanto to nearby traditional or organic farms, when the farmers do not want those weeds. I am also concerned about the plans for Monsanto to take over the Dutch seed company De Ruiter, a firm that is amongst the top ten in the world. It is all too obvious that Monsanto is trying to infiltrate more into Europe. Either in expectation of more flexible rules, or simply to be able to put pressure on the politicians to relax the rules very quickly. We have to resist that fiercely. Public health, the environment and biodiversity are more important to us than commercial profits.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, what a laughing stock the EU must be to its competitors! With sanctimonious fervour we ban GMOs in animal feedstuffs, even to the ridiculous point of zero tolerance of any unauthorised GM trace, but simultaneously meat derived from animals reared outside the EU and fed with the very GMOs which we refuse to authorise can be imported freely anywhere within the 27 States.

It sounds like zero sense to me. The EU strains at a gnat and swallows a camel, and who suffers? Our own producers, who have to pay sky-high prices for GM-free feedstuffs. It seems that, within the EU, if the political correctness boxes can be ticked then we should be happy, never mind the lunacy which we create.

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, although European livestock generates over 40% of added value in our agriculture production, it is also true we now lack sufficient raw material to feed our animals. In my country, Spain, the situation of beef, more dependent on feed than in other Member States, is devastating. In the case of pigmeat and poultry, the terrible situation is similar all over Europe.

As has already been mentioned, Community legislation permits the sale of feed containing GMOs, provided these are authorised in the EU, but does not envisage any minimum levels for unauthorised GMOs. This is causing problems in trade with third country exporters and also with the European livestock sector per se which, as I have said, is experiencing shortages.

This is not the first time I have agreed with Mr Mulder, and on this occasion I listened to him and I think we also agree on this issue, for a possible solution could be to accept accidental GM contaminations up to a certain threshold, provided these have been positively assessed by the EFSA and authorised by a third country, in accordance with Codex principles and operating a clear labelling policy.

Another solution could be to produce more in European territory, but it would appear that the Commission has shut off that particular avenue by its checking proposals. The case of desiccated feed as an essential component of animal fodder is paradigmatic. Even though it acknowledges the danger involved in abandoning production, the Commission still insists on applying the decoupled payments.

I therefore wish to emphasise that we are facing a serious problem of animal feed shortages, and the European Commission is responsible for dealing with this situation.

  Kyösti Virrankoski (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, a genetically modified crop species is cultivated by changing its genotype with the help of precise scientific technology. This technology is based on developments in genetics going back a good half-century. It has helped to cultivate species in a way that requires less effort and less use of pesticides, and has made it possible to produce bigger harvests. For that reason, their cultivation has increased fast.

The European Union has been unable to be involved in this development because it adheres to a system of strict bureaucratic monitoring. Whenever trials and research carried out by the European Food Safety Authority have shown a species to be risk-free and of benefit to the consumer, it still has to go through a lengthy process before it is approved. The Commission’s proposal first goes to a standing committee, which approves or rejects the proposal by a qualified majority. If it cannot make a decision, the next step is the Council, and if they cannot make a decision either, the proposal goes back to the Commission, which in the end makes a decision. It has, however, all taken time.

A lot of GM animal feed is imported into the European Union. Countries which try and restrict the cultivation of GM species are even happy to use it. Because the EU has not had time to approve all the species now being used, the feed may contain small traces of these. In such cases the entire shipment is returned. This causes the industry to incur costs and affects the competitiveness of European food production. This is why we need to apply reason in this area. Infinitely small traces of species approved in other countries should not have such unreasonable consequences, especially when European agriculture is up against global competition anyway.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) A Latin proverb says that natural is good. Naturally, this is not to say that GMOs, which are artificial, are bad, but as yet we do not have conclusive scientific data proving beyond any doubt that they are good for you. On the contrary, we have the example of the United States where the highest tolerance towards GMOs is combined with the highest obesity incidence. Genetics and bio technology are still an inexact science. The hold a lot of promise but at the same time by using them we run the huge risk of losing a lot, losing perhaps more than we can afford.

The current EU policy of caution to genetically modified organisms is a good policy for the time being, considering available scientific achievements. I believe, however, that we should nevertheless remember European producers. The current situation is, in a way, quite unnatural and the Commission should strike a balance where European producers are not discriminated against, while achieving a situation where European consumers can indeed choose whether to consume GMOs or GMO-free crops. I am glad that I am a young person in the European Union and I would enjoy being able to make this informed choice.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, given the high import dependency of the EU for protein-rich feedingstuffs such as soya bean meal and corn gluten feed, how can the Commission justify the current situation in which even feedingstuffs with only the smallest trace of unauthorised GMOs are banned and destroyed at our ports, whereas meat derived from animals that are fed with these very same unauthorised GMOs can freely enter the EU into the food chain and be consumed by our consumers, thus causing a major distortion of competition to the detriment of European farmers?

A threshold value – as is already the case for the adventitious presence of traces of authorised GMOs for the labelling of products as GMO-free – should be applied for the adventitious presence of traces of unauthorised GMOs that have already obtained a positive assessment from the EFSA or that have undergone a feed and food safety risk assessment in accordance with the Codex GM plant guidelines. Is the Commission planning to come forward with concrete proposals to that end, and when?

Our lengthy authorisation process lacks scientific rigour and integrity and is the road to serious world trade disputes and, embarrassingly, arises from interinstitutional prevarication on this issue. No other trading block is resisting change in this way.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – (HU) The time has come for us to have a serious and worthwhile debate on genetic technology in Europe, for up to now we have only heard religious polemics, in many cases only whipping up hysteria. Science cannot and must not be stopped. With an explosion in population and food prices, we cannot dismiss the opportunities offered us by biotechnology and genetic engineering. We cannot have the green revolution without them.

My report on biogas, approved in March, shows that the European Parliament expressed consensus on licensing GM plants to be grown for bio-energy. While there was consensus among the parliamentary parties in Hungary on the preservation of GM-free agriculture, we have to see that this is an illusion. Eighty-five per cent of the soya imported as animal feed is now genetically modified.

It is obvious that genetic modification is not a game, the risks are huge. It is imperative that a credible, science-based specialist supervisory agency at Union level, independent of big business, is set up, able to inspect GM products, able to provide protection against hazards and quell groundless anxieties. On the one hand, the multinational companies concerned with GMOs are somewhat reluctant to issue detailed documentation about their products, and are not partners in scientific trials although, for consumer protection, this would be an essential requirement. On the other hand, there is also a lot of confusing information and unscientific scare stories put about by GM opponents. That is why this debate is so important. Thank you for your attention.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE). – (PT) I should also like to express the extreme concern that the agricultural sector in the Azores, my region, has about the current situation. I believe it has been shown in this debate that nothing can justify the existence of a policy which prohibits the use of GMOs in animal feed at the same time as allowing the consumption of meat produced using these GMOs.

I also believe that the exaggeration existing in the zero tolerance policy has been made clear. Finally, I should like to say that anyone who knows the animal feed industry cannot doubt the obvious impact that both these factors will have on food prices. This impact is very clear, particularly for corn gluten feed and the waste from using maize to produce alcohol. I have already called on the European Commission to take account of the situation of farmers throughout Europe.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the agriculture debate, we currently face the challenge posed by the Health Check. I would be interested to hear whether the GMO debate plays a role, and to what extent it is being discussed, in that context.

We all know that there is a heated debate worldwide about the food/energy security issue at present. We need to see what implications this debate has for us.

I myself am always in favour of zero tolerance when it comes to labelling. It should be clear to the consumer what he or she is buying. From that perspective, we should ensure that the legislative bodies at regional level also have a chance to decide on this issue.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Madam President, even at this late time of the day, listening to the debate, I feel the need to say just three things.

First of all, it is true that there is no scientific evidence that GMOs pose a hazard to human or animal health. However, as a previous speaker, who has now gone, mentioned, asbestos was not thought to be hazardous and, yet, we know today that it causes mesothelioma – lung cancer. And, of course, smoking was not thought to be hazardous to anybody until a few years ago and now, of course, we know that it causes lung cancer, pulmonary disease and coronary artery stenosis. So it is better to be safe than sorry.

Secondly, Mr Allister and Mr Casaca talked about the difference between GMOs in feed and animals that have been fed on GMOs. There is a large difference between the two. There is a difference, because, in the feed, the GMO is in a completely different state from the GMO that has been fed to the animal, digested by the animal and metabolised by the animal, and then is just, probably, present – but it is not – in the animal’s meat in a completely different form than in the feed.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE). – (FR) Madam President, it is clear that this topic of genetically modified organisms is a democratic urgency, an economic necessity and a legal imperative. I congratulate our committee for tackling the subject.

As far as our debate is concerned, it is clear that the European Union is highly dependent on imports of protein-rich feedingstuffs. That goes back to the scientific debates, and the import of animals fed with feed that does not comply with the European rules leads us to wonder whether the European Union is capable of protecting its citizens.

The protection regime is not protectionism, it is simply a question, and I would like to ask the Commission if it feels that the quality of our customs system, which has in my view deteriorated considerably, would allow it to respond to all of the considerations raised in this excellent debate.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). – Madam President, when the Commissioner answers, could she say something about the possibilities of increasing the tolerance level from zero to a higher percentage, say 0.7%, 0.9% or whatever it is? From listening to the debate, I think that is the essence of what has been said. Zero tolerance in the present circumstances is a bit too stringent.

  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I listened very carefully to the various comments that the honourable Members have made.

We do recognise in the Commission that asynchronous approvals of GMOs can represent a problem for the availability and cost of feed imports. Although the rising costs in this sector are the result of different, complex and sometimes much wider factors, all these factors have been taken into consideration in the study that was made by DG AGRI.

The Commission’s efforts are targeted at addressing some of the key factors behind this issue, both at internal level, though the authorisation of new GMOs in the full respect of the EU legislative framework, and at international level, through the discussions with our major trading partners.

Several speakers have posed the question whether the Commission would be prepared to move from zero tolerance to something higher. I must remind you that to do so we need codecision both from Parliament and the Council, and we need to have the support of Member States. You know what the stance of the Member States has been in the various standing committees, where we rarely, as far as I know never, managed to get a qualified majority.

I would like to say that to impose restrictions over imported animal products which are the product of animals fed with GMOs would probably fail to comply with our international commitments.

Lastly I want to say a few words about the delays in the authorisation process, which was mentioned by a number of speakers. There is an ongoing discussion between the Commission and the EFSA to verify the possibility of efficiency gains in the authorisation procedure without any compromise on the quality of the scientific assessment.

One of the elements which have been highlighted is the need to better communicate to applicants the requirements for the authorisation in order to improve, from the start, the quality of their dossiers.

Furthermore, and as a result of this discussion, the Authority has taken the commitment to carry out the preliminary validity check within six weeks from the submission of the application, thus significantly reducing the timeline for the authorisation procedure.

It is also important to note that the approval process could be significantly shortened if the Commission had greater support from Member States in the comitology process for the authorisation of GMOs.

Lastly I want to reply to a comment that was made by a speaker that in our risk management we take into account economic grounds only. I would say that, for us, the primary factor is the safety to human and animal health and the environment as well.

Having said that, I would like to say that the Commission remains open to discuss possible suggestions in this field, but only on the precondition that any proposed solution respect the fundamental aim of guaranteeing the safety of the products placed on the EU market.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The EU’s policy on GMOs favours multinationals at the expense of consumers. Farmers become ever more dependent on monopolisation and the multinationals take control of agriculture.

GMOs are detrimental to public health. Some of them have been scientifically proven to be implicated in allergies and to undermine the immune system.

The irreversible effects on the environment make the danger of GMOs many times greater. Biodiversity is restricted and the limitation of contamination can certainly not be guaranteed.

This policy is economically harmful. GMOs are one of the contributing factors to increased food prices and world hunger, as international economic organisations now openly assert.

The proposal to adopt zero tolerance is spurious and ineffective; it is the result of compromising with the interests of multinationals. It permits the cultivation of certain GMOs and the consumption of products deriving from genetically modified fodder, such as meat from non-member countries.

This policy has the specific aim of limiting the vehement protests of the workers in EU Member States who are demanding safe, GM-free food, at accessible prices.

We believe that genetically modified crops should be totally banned in Member States, as should imports of products showing traces of GMOs. At the same time, however, measures should be taken to protect Community production and consumers.

16. Agenda for the next sitting: see Minutes

17. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11.20 p.m.)