Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 27 October 2011 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

(The sitting opened at 9.05)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Situation in Egypt and Syria, in particular of the Christian communities (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

4. Current developments in Ukraine (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

5. Ombudsman's annual report 2010 (debate)

  President. − The first item is the report (A7-0285/2011) by Iliana Malinova Iotova, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2010 [2011/2106(INI)].

  Iliana Malinova Iotova, rapporteur. – (BG) Mr President, the European Ombudsman Service was created by the Treaty of Maastricht as one of the features of European Union citizenship. Article 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for the right to submit a complaint to the European Ombudsman.

On 27 September 2010 it was 15 years since the European Ombudsman was created as an institution. The occasion was marked by a presentation of the strategy for its development until 2014. The protection afforded to European citizens has changed in the last 15 years, thanks to the Ombudsman’s independence and the democratic control exercised by the European Parliament over the transparency of his work. The experience acquired during these 15 years enables the Ombudsman to see the basic problems in maladministration and structural weaknesses in the relations between institutions, as well as between institutions and citizens.

In carrying out his job up to 2010, Mr Diamandouros demonstrated a commitment to raising European Union citizens’ awareness of their rights and of how they can be protected. This mainly concerns the right to good administration, the right to access European Union documents, which is sometimes refused even to us MEPs, the right to engage in dialogue with the European Union’s institutions, and the right to contact the Ombudsman.

The creation of the Ombudsman’s interactive portal and website provides irrefutable proof of this, enabling citizens to find out to whom and about what they can submit complaints. This service has been used by 19 000 people in the past year. Thanks to this portal, the number of complaints submitted to the Ombudsman in 2010 fell by 400, compared with the previous year.

However, in spite of this, even this year most of the complaints submitted have been to do with the transparency of and access to information. More than 30% of the complaints are about this.

In the tough economic climate Europe is currently experiencing, Euroscepticism is growing in most Member States. In a period of crisis, more and more countries are trying to find ways and citizens want to express their views as citizens and voice their discontent when their rights are violated. They send their complaints to Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, which sometimes delays these complaints and petitions by three or four years, making them ineffective.

I think that Mr Diamandouros is improving, through his work, the quality of transparency and Europeans’ awareness, but as he himself always says: ‘I am just one person and there are more than 700 of you.’ This is why everyone’s efforts are required to support this cause. In this respect, I would like to mention and thank the Ombudsman for his good cooperation with Parliament’s Committee on Petitions.

The European Ombudsman also works in close cooperation with his colleagues in the Member States within the so-called European Network of Ombudsmen. In 2010, in 977 cases, the complaints were sent to members of the European Network of Ombudsmen. In 2010 the Ombudsman continued to exercise his powers in an active, impartial manner, which is highlighted by the number of inquiries carried out on the basis of complaints submitted during the last year – 323 – with the majority of the inquiries concerning the European Commission. This is why we urge the Commissioner in charge of interinstitutional relations to take measures to remedy this.

Another example of the Ombudsman’s effectiveness is that he made the European Medicines Agency provide better access to its archives and documents. The Lisbon Treaty’s entry into force in 2009 means that the European Ombudsman’s powers also include the possibility of investigating maladministration within the common foreign policy and security policy, as well as the possibility of submitting special reports to Parliament’s Committee on Petitions when institutions fail to respond satisfactorily to the grievances sent to them.

Finally, I would like to express once again my support. I am confident that I will not be the only one in this Chamber to support the information campaign which Mr Diamandouros is intending to launch in connection with promoting the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as I hope that it will be an integral part of a future legislation.

  Nikiforos Diamandouros, Ombudsman. − Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this opportunity to address you. I wish to thank the Committee on Petitions and especially the Chair, Ms Mazzoni, and the rapporteur, Ms Iotova. They have offered me valuable support and advice in the report before you today, and I am deeply grateful for that.

Parliament and the Ombudsman both work to ensure that citizens and residents of the EU can enjoy their rights to the full, but do so in different ways. The Ombudsman’s mandate is more limited. I can only conduct inquiries into complaints against EU institutions, whilst you can examine what Member States are doing as well. Furthermore, Parliament, as a sovereign political body, can deal with petitions that request changes in the law or new laws. In contrast, my role is more specific: it is to help uncover maladministration and attempt to put it right.

Maladministration encompasses all kinds of poor or improper administrative behaviour, from discrimination or other violations of fundamental rights to late payments, and from publishing misleading information to failure to reply to correspondence. Unlike court rulings, my decisions are not legally binding. However, I use the power of persuasion to achieve friendly solutions with which both sides – that is, the complainant and the European bodies concerned – can be satisfied. The outcome can thus be more flexible and often faster than the courts.

After my intervention, institutions and bodies have very often settled bills, paid interest, released documents, remedied injustices and put an end to discrimination. I make efforts to help every complainant who turns to the Ombudsman, even in cases when the complaint is not within my mandate.

In January 2009, as just mentioned by Ms Iotova, I launched an interactive guide on my website, which is accessible in all 23 official languages. This guide aims to direct complainants to the body best placed to help them. The number of inadmissible complaints submitted to me has since shown a significant decline. I attribute this decline, at least in part, to the fact that, by using the interactive guide, more citizens are finding the right address to turn to the first time around. I note that since its launch more than 60 000 people have received advice through the guide.

Reducing the number of inadmissible complaints has been a long-standing demand of Parliament, and I wish to register my response to that. We should not underestimate how important it is for citizens to be guided to the most appropriate complaint-handling body from the outset and to be spared the frustrations and delays associated with having to identify the right institution on their own. In contrast to the reduction of the complaints outside my mandate, the numbers of inquiries opened and closed in 2010 – that is, 335 and 326 respectively – remained roughly stable compared to 2009. This trend confirms that more of the people turning to the European Ombudsman are doing so for the right reasons.

I am pleased to note also that, in 2010, 55% of all investigations were either settled by the institution or resulted in a friendly solution. In the other cases I issued a recommendation that was accepted by the institution, thereby satisfying the complainant, or I did not find an instance of maladministration. Only in 33 cases did I issue a critical remark or, in one case, a special report submitted to this august body. The number of critical remarks issued by my office has shown a sustained reduction in recent years. This suggests that the EU institutions are taking a more proactive role in resolving complaints and enabling win-win situations. This is obviously always preferable for the complainant and the institution concerned.

In 2010 the most common allegation examined by the Ombudsman was lack of transparency in the EU administration. This allegation arose in 33% of all closed inquiries and included refusal of information and access to documents. I note with concern that the number of transparency cases has remained depressingly and consistently high over the past few years. Although Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been in force for ten years now, it is still puzzling to observe some institutions struggling with the principle enshrined in the regulation: that openness is the basic rule in the EU legal order and secrecy the exception.

For my part, I will continue to insist on the fundamental right of access to documents and I will continue to endeavour to raise awareness of the right to address the Ombudsman and to petition Parliament so that citizens can best seek redress. Furthermore, I believe that the EU institutions should not only react properly and in the spirit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 when receiving requests for access to documents, but that institutions should act proactively – I repeat, proactively – in putting documents into the public domain.

I have also taken additional measures to enhance transparency with respect to the Ombudsman’s own operations. From the beginning of this year I have started publishing information on my website about all new enquiries into complaints that I open, as opposed to those that I close. There are many other ways in which the institutions and bodies of the EU can become more citizen-friendly. In order consistently to deliver good administration – the key component of being citizen-friendly – institutions and bodies need to nurture a culture of service to citizens. A body that seeks to promote such a culture of service will encourage the members of its staff not only to respect good administration as a legal right but also to be polite, helpful and cooperative in dealing with citizens, willing to explain their activities and the reasoning behind the decisions taken, and ready to accept public scrutiny of their conduct.

A concise statement of these and other public service principles would, I believe, help promote citizens’ trust in the European civil service and the EU institutions. I have therefore set myself the task of drafting such a statement of public service principles which the conduct of EU officials should reflect.

In order to take account of the best practices which exist in the Member States, I asked my national colleagues for information and their views. Once that process was completed I launched a public consultation on the draft statement of public service principles earlier this year, to which I have received numerous valuable contributions. Next month I shall publish a report on the consultation and its outcome. Much more still needs to be done. A recent Eurobarometer survey commissioned by the Ombudsman and the Parliament reveals that one major challenge we face is that most European citizens are not aware of their rights. For example, more than 70% of the 27 000 respondents did not feel sufficiently informed about the Charter of Fundamental Rights. A further 13% had never even heard of the Charter. In addition, many citizens do not know where to turn if they encounter problems either with the application of EU law in general or in the exercise of their rights, whether at regional, national or European level.

To conclude, although it is clear to me that much has been achieved to date, it is equally clear to me that there is much more work ahead for all of us – Ombudsmen, Parliament, the other institutions and the European network of Ombudsmen – in order to enhance citizens’ trust in the EU and to consolidate a culture of service in the institutions. Closer cooperation between all of us, engaging in systematic dialogue, learning from best practices whenever and wherever they can be found, allocating more resources to responding to citizens’ enquiries and complaint handling are all key aspects of building trust, of serving citizens and of helping them enjoy their rights more fully.

I am certain that in the years to come we will achieve much more in that direction and, in so doing, we shall make our modest contribution to the deepening of the rule of law and to the enhancement of the quality of democracy. Honourable Members, I look forward to your remarks, and I welcome the presence of Commissioner Kroes.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, what a great start to the day: firstly to replace my dear colleague Maroš Šefčovič; secondly, to sit next to the Ombudsman, and thirdly, to be involved in a discussion about a very important issue. I would like to congratulate the honourable Member, Ms Iotova, on her report, which is one of those base elements where we can start the discussion.

I welcome this report. As the Ombudsman’s report it represents a good start, one which is closer to the European citizen. Especially with regard to Ms Iotova’s report, it offers a clear and exhaustive overview of the activities of the Ombudsman – not only for the past year – and is also a very useful tool for the other institutions.

Let me also take the opportunity to thank the Ombudsman personally for his report, which reflects the constructive relations our institutions have built together and which show the outside world that we are working in close cooperation. This does not mean that we always agree 100% on everything but, if that were the case, it would be less challenging.

Relations between the Commission and the Ombudsman are very fruitful and very positive. There are some outstanding issues on which both parties are committed to making every effort to reach mutual understanding. Since the Commission is the main Union institution that takes decisions which have a direct impact on citizens, I believe there is nothing unusual in it being the principal object of inquiries. So there is nothing new here and we should not be surprised.

As regards cases with critical and further remarks, these are specially registered and closely followed by the Ombudsman, who publishes a study every year on each institution’s follow-up to his critical and further remarks. Of course we need to be aware that your attention is not confined to the one moment when you make a remark and that the follow-up is also closely monitored.

Last year the Commission was able to follow up 31% of the critical remarks issued by the Ombudsman., which represents a considerable proportion. It is worth noting that the number of critical remarks addressed to the Commission continues to decrease, representing 12% of the inquiries closed in 2010. If you compare this with 14% in 2009 and 16% in 2008, 12% is not a bad score. It reflects the fruitful efforts by the Commission to improve its administration and to develop further the principles of a genuine culture of service.

I am aware that one of the Ombudsman’s most frequent concerns relates to the alleged lack of transparency of the Commission, including the refusal to provide information. I am committed to further tackling such cases. However, I would like to note that in this field the Commission thoroughly examines all the inquiries addressed to it by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman often closes his inquiries with critical and further remarks because the Commission has not respected deadlines during the procedures. That is clear and follows the complaints request for access to a file. The Ombudsman points out that a third of the complaints deal with requests for information or for public access to documents.

In 2010 he closed 23 inquiries and opened 22 new ones. However, the number of complaints must be seen in perspective. In 2010 the Commission handled more than 6 000 requests for access to documents and 5 000 requests were granted. Everything is relative, but please take into account that 5 000 requests were granted. The Commission took 122 decisions on confirmatory applications, of which 22 led to a complaint to the Ombudsman. These figures show that the Commission duly respects citizens’ fundamental right of access to documents.

Regarding the recast of the regulation, the Commission submitted a proposal in 2008 which is still at first reading in Parliament. No comment, only a note: with a view to complying with the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission submitted a second proposal in March this year, and, as I can tell by his body language, the Ombudsman welcomes this move to achieve rapid compliance with the Treaty by extending the right of access to all institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU.

As regards the Ombudsman’s special report sent to the Parliament in 2010 and regarding a complaint on access to Commission documents – the ‘Porsche’ affair – I regret that this special report was sent shortly after the Commission had taken a final decision on the case. We are collegial and we are open to each other, so I imagine that from our side we are allowed to make that kind of remark. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the time taken to reach that decision was excessive, even if it was due to the failure of the third party to respond to the Commission’s proposal. The picture tends to be clearer when we have all the facts than when we do not.

I would like to stress that the Commission is fully committed to sincerely cooperating with the Ombudsman and that it does not have any intention of obstructing the Ombudsman’s work in any way. I would not dare to say anything different. This is Maroš’s text and I am also completely committed to it.

Finally, the Commission – like the Iotova report – also encourages the Ombudsman to continue to promote the European Network of Ombudsmen, with a view to developing a comprehensive database and better informing EU citizens about the apportioning of responsibilities between the European Ombudsman, the national ombudsmen and Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. The Commission looks forward to the Ombudsman’s statement of public service principles, which was recently the subject of a public consultation open to national ombudsmen, colleagues and other interested parties. The Commission contributed to this public consultation by stressing that public service principles are well settled in staff regulations and in different Commission codes, such as the Commission’s Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

The Commission will always be willing to further reinforce its culture of service and ensure the coherence of its actions in those fields which are most widely covered by the Ombudsman’s inquiries.

  Mariya Nedelcheva, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (BG) Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Iotova, for her fine, comprehensive report.

Mr Diamandouros, your job is of paramount importance in terms of strengthening citizens’ trust in our institutions because we must never lose sight of the principle of good administration, and we must never take success for granted, stop striving and work even harder for our citizens.

This is precisely why the reports on the European Ombudsman’s annual activities are of such great significance in terms of improving the work of our institutions for the benefit of Europe’s citizens. I would like to draw your attention to a few points.

First of all, 2010 marked the re-election of Mr Diamandouros as European Ombudsman, the institution’s 15th anniversary, a new look for the annual report and a new strategy. All of this highlights the considerable experience that has been acquired and the desire to make progress. I would like to mention the reduction in the number of complaints compared with the 2009 figure, as well as the continuing trend for a large proportion of the complaints to relate to the transparency of and access to information.

We should not forget the importance of transparency. Transparency is the rule, but confidentiality the exception. The Lisbon Treaty also equipped the European Ombudsman with another important instrument: the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which became legally binding in the majority of Member States, and the right to good administration acquired legal value. The European Ombudsman should make the most of this new, sound legal basis to carry out his job successfully.

Good cooperation with the new European External Action Service and the European Council is also so vital. It is important for the European Ombudsman to continue to support the activities of the European Network of Ombudsmen, and for us to continue setting up a comprehensive database. This is so that European citizens are better informed about the distribution of responsibilities between the European Ombudsman, the national ombudsmen and our Committee on Petitions, because we are all defending the interests of Europe’s citizens and bear responsibility for strengthening trust in Europe’s institutions.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PL) Mr President, 27 September 2010 marked the 15th anniversary of the European Ombudsman institution. In this decade and a half, the Ombudsman completed more than 3 800 inquiries into possible maladministration and answered more than 36 000 complaints received from individual citizens or businesses of the European Union who felt they had been victims of mistakes or omissions on the part of European institutions or agencies. In order to emphasise the important role played by the office of the Ombudsman, it is worth reminding ourselves that 2 667 complaints were registered last year alone. Particular praise is due to the Ombudsman’s initiative to publish regular studies examining the EU institutions’ follow-up to his critical remarks.

From year to year the trust of citizens in the Ombudsman’s office increases and his modus operandi is, equally, becoming more user-friendly. As a result of promotional activities and improvements introduced into the procedure for lodging complaints, nearly 58% of complaints received last year were submitted online, which expedited the whole procedure of dealing with them, while the average duration of proceedings was reduced to less than nine months which, unfortunately, is still too long for citizens.

Quite a few complaints could have been avoided if citizens had had easier access to documents of the EU institutions. Transparency in the decision-making process and responsibility of the EU institutions should be the basis for contacts with citizens. The report, however, shows clearly that those issues related to as many as 33% of the total number of inquiries in 2010. I am, therefore, looking forward to concrete action being taken in order to improve this situation also. I would like to use this occasion to emphasise the continuous and excellent nature of cooperation between the European Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Committee on Petitions on which I am serving for the second term.

I hope that the European Ombudsman institution will not stop improving its activities aimed at guaranteeing the residents of the European Union their ability to exercise their rights. I wish further success to the Ombudsman, Professor Nikiforos Diamandouros, who has held the position successfully since 2003. I personally appreciate his work very much. Finally, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Iotova, for her excellent performance.

  Edward McMillan-Scott, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to join other colleagues in thanking Ms Iotova for an excellent report into what appears to be an admirable year for the Ombudsman. It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee on Petitions once again. I first served on it 27 years ago for a period. At that time there was no Ombudsman and no effective procedure for complaints into maladministration by the EU institutions, but today we can reflect not only on the fact that the Ombudsman’s office is there, is fully staffed, has a budget and has a mandate, but that its mandate has been increased by the Lisbon Treaty to include foreign and defence policy and the new External Action Service. This new scope will be a challenge for the Ombudsman, but I am sure he will meet it, as he always does, with the full cooperation of the European Parliament, and especially its Committee on Petitions.

It is important that when maladministration is alleged there is a framework within which this can be decided. I am pleased to see that the Ombudsman is promulgating a statement of public service principles which our civil servants in Parliament, the Commission and elsewhere within the EU can read and understand and follow. It is good to see, too, that the Ombudsman is using very frequently a process of conciliation before a formal procedure is begun. This is all extremely encouraging and, from my group’s point of view, we would like Mr Diamandouros to continue his excellent work and to endorse fully the report by Ms Iotova, which we adopted in committee on 13 June. We would like to thank you all for your work.

  Marek Henryk Migalski, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, Commissioner, Ms Iotova has told us that, indeed, most complaints addressed to the Ombudsman relate to activities of the European Commission. This is a classic example of one branch or body of the European Union finding solutions to problems created by another body within the EU. Unfortunately, it is a classic example of growing bureaucracy which, according to some sociological laws, is inevitable. Mr McMillan-Scott told us correctly that the Ombudsman has the appropriate staff. Unfortunately, there are already 64 of them. The budget of the Ombudsman institution is already nearly EUR 10 million. The question naturally suggests itself as to whether the important work carried out by the Ombudsman should really require such a budget and the involvement of so many people. These doubts explain why my group will abstain from voting on the Iotova report.

  Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Mr President, the image that EU citizens have of the EU is one of enormous and inaccessible bureaucracy, and it is difficult to dispel that image. When we talk about making 2013 the ‘Year of the Citizens’ there is a fair chance that it will become farcical. In other respects, we have made huge strides in enabling the participation of citizens, first and foremost with our Ombudsman, whose annual report we are grateful for, and we are today debating Ms Iotova’s splendid report. I would like to thank her and my fellow Members for the fact that we can indeed be very proud of this report.

The thinking behind the legislative amendments concerning administration is clear: the EU’s administration must be for the benefit of citizens. It is the citizens who must have confidence in the system, and it must be their experience that it works. We have laid down requirements concerning sound administration in the Charter, making it mandatory for the EU institutions, and we have improved the legal basis for public access to documents, so that the already splendid Regulation (EC) No 1047 can be even better. The problem is simply that important elements of the Commission and the Council do not want to play ball. For them, it is still the task of the administration to protect the people in power from the citizens. In 2008, we experienced disastrous opposition to the improvements to Regulation (EC) No 1041, and it will probably be a battle to get the Commission to propose the legislation that we need concerning sound administration. If it is to be secure/safeguarded, we must have legislation on this. This is also stated in paragraph 29 of the report.

The fact that most complaints received by the Ombudsman concern the Commission does not inspire confidence, and it is worrying – and this is something that I have to say to the Commissioner – that the number of these complaints is rising. After all, the Commission is central to the EU. It is the Commission that is supposed to ensure that the EU develops in accordance with European values and it also has the exclusive right to table legislative proposals. On that basis, it is alarming that prominent officials in fact believe that the Commission should still protect itself from the citizens. I have heard of one prominent official from the Directorate-General for the Environment who did not even want to grant access to the infringement procedures once a case was closed because he believed that it could harm confidence within the system. No, it is the citizens who must have confidence in us, not the other way round! That is the way the system should work. This is not a question of culture. There is not a Nordic culture of openness and a southern culture of corruption. Am I permitted to be here? A culture of openness is something that we should have everywhere. Our Ombudsman is Greek, and we cannot say that the people in the south do not go in for openness.

Lastly, allow me to ask the Ombudsman to pay attention to one thing in the budget that we are talking about. What does it cost for the Ombudsman to be based in Strasbourg – a long way from his work – instead of being based where he works? I would like to ask the Ombudsman to give us clear figures so that we can see what we could save if we moved him close to his work.

  Nikolaos Chountis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, I agree and support Ms Iotova’s report on the Ombudsman’s annual report 2010. I have read the annual report by the Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, I have a personal opinion on his work and I think that he deserves to be congratulated on it.

I believe that it is only to be expected that the crisis gripping the European Union in general and certain countries in particular and the increasing democratic deficit will result in more infringements of fundamental rights of European citizens. This is proven, in my opinion, by the fact that complaints against the Commission have increased. It is not simply the role that the Commission plays in the institutional construct; it is that, recently, more and more policies have been coming out of that institution and the problem I have is that – as the complaints addressed to Mr Diamandouros illustrate – we do not know if the problem is one of maladministration or of deliberate policy that undermines citizens’ basic rights.

I think that, in numerous cases, it is the latter. That is why complaints have increased against the Commission, which represents these conservative and, ultimately, anti-democratic policies, of which I have a great many examples.

Moreover, the fact that complaints to the European Ombudsman have fallen compared with the previous year does not mean that Mr Diamandouros is not doing his job properly. It means, in my opinion, that the European Ombudsman is also facing a crisis of confidence, like all the EU institutions; disappointed European citizens see no point in taking recourse even to the European Ombudsman when they see that there is a problem.

Finally, I think that we should give the European Ombudsman more support in his work; in particular, we need to start an information campaign on his role and on the options available to European citizens when they take recourse to the European Ombudsman, because it would appear from the geographical distribution of complaints that numerous countries account for a very small proportion of complaints.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Mr President, I too should like to take my turn in commenting positively on the annual report on the excellent work carried out by the European Ombudsman in 2010 and on Ms Iotova’s report, which contains a great deal of information.

A statesman in ancient Rome used to say: ‘Carthago delenda est’. He always finished his speeches with that phrase and Carthage did indeed fall and was destroyed. Where is our Carthage today? Our Carthage today is the attitude of the administration, which has no respect for its citizens, and corruption. As far as corruption is concerned, there is nothing your institutional can do, Mr Diamandouros. However, you can do a great deal to consolidate a spirit of respect for citizens within the administration.

According to the statistics in the report under consideration today, you received 2 667 complaints from citizens, companies, associations, non-governmental organisations and people resident and established in the European Union in 2010. Despite the drop compared with 2009, I personally consider that this institution is well-established in the minds of European citizens; however, as I understand it, they have not yet determined the extent of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and they are taking recourse to him on matters that fall outside his jurisdiction.

Of course I understand that there are cases in which citizens cannot define the concept of the principle of subsidiarity that underpins the legal aspects of how the Union operates. However, even in cases submitted to the Ombudsman which fall outside his jurisdiction, I think that it is becoming clear that he is being recognised as an institution, as a refuge for people seeking justice. That is the most important thing.

Thus, Mr Diamandouros, of the above complaints, from what I have seen of the statistics, only 744 or 27% fell within your jurisdiction. However, it is the majority, the 63% of the people who took recourse to you, who vest greater responsibility in you. Everyone is turning to your institution. I consider that the way in which you operate this institution will restore the confidence of the citizens of Europe in a model and in a European Union whose credibility today, because of the economic crisis, is causing tremendous insecurity.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Diamandouros, ladies and gentlemen, the annual report for 2010 has been presented to us and shows clearly that complaints regarding administrative abuses and weaknesses in the European Union institutions have declined in number since 2009, dropping from 3 098 to 2 667. It should be noted that you, Mr Diamandouros, were able to bring investigations to a conclusion, as well as initiating new inquiries.

The most common problem last year was public access to documents – access to information per se is already regulated in Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The number of complaints clearly indicates that the relevant legal framework needs to be examined and revised on a continuous basis. At the same time, however, I would also call for a responsible approach from the institutions in relation to the transparency initiative to which they have subscribed.

I would like to close by thanking you, Mr Diamandouros, for another year of appreciable work. I look forward to continued positive cooperation with you over the coming years.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Ombudsman’s office carries out an extremely important socio-political role, even though I realise that this does not exonerate it from responding to my fellow Members’ legitimate questions on the size of the budget; conversely it underlines even more the productivity of his efforts.

The Ombudsman’s office, SOLVIT and the Committee on Petitions together comprise Europe’s network for the protection of citizens’ rights. In reality, through the various procedures, which are explained so well in the resolution, the Ombudsman seeks to provide full expression to representation – that basic principle of democracy – by filling communication gaps, clearing up ambiguities and making the system more transparent. As many of my fellow Members have pointed out, in this report on the year 2010, we can see an overall drop in the number of petitions – which does not diminish the sense of citizens’ civic participation – but at the same time an increase in the number of complaints against the Commission in its executive role.

I am pleased with the positive approach adopted by Ms Kroes and the content of her speech, because I think the Commission ought to take some directions from today’s debate and from the work that the citizens protection network performs. I have the utmost trust in the good faith, commitment and goodwill shown by Ms Kroes and I should therefore like to see a clear message taken from this: the Commission has too many bureaucratic instruments and too many superstructures: Perhaps some people confuse authority with authoritarianism, which compromises the healthy relationship with citizens. I therefore thank the Ombudsman for his work, as well as Ms Kroes and the rapporteur, Ms Iotova, for their excellent work.

  Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, you were re-elected by the European Parliament in its plenary session on 20 January 2010, and this very fact suggests that the European Parliament has confidence in your work and in your office, and that you serve your position well. We can state with pleasure that your high quality work has continued after the broadening of the Ombudsman's mandate by the Lisbon Treaty and that you have discharged your new tasks excellently. At this point I would like to mention your definition of maladministration, which has been approved by the European Parliament and, subsequently, also by the European Commission. It reads as follows: –‘Maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it.’ For our institutions this means compliance with the principles of the rule of law, good governance and fundamental rights. Likewise, in its Article 41, the Charter of Fundamental Rights includes the right to good administration as a fundamental right for EU citizens and is binding upon the administrations of EU institutions.

Maladministration was revealed in 12% of cases closed in 2010. You obtained a positive outcome for the complainant or complainants in seven cases by making draft recommendations that were accepted. In 2010 you also issued sixteen new draft recommendations. In the annual report, special attention is paid to the strategy for the current term of office. This primarily concerns the broadening and deepening of contacts with the EU institutions and civil society. This is one of the key tasks in terms of the future of the European Union and therefore, Mr Ombudsman, we shall keep our fingers crossed for you. For many citizens it is your office (and you personally) that provides a kind of last resort in the hope that their cases will be resolved. We could envy you in this task, but we sincerely wish you all the best and hope that you will continue to help the citizens of the Member States of the European Union with your high quality work.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, first of all I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mr Diamandouros and the entire team of the Ombudsman’s office on their successful performance in 2010. The statistics speak for themselves: more and more cases are being resolved, fewer and fewer critical remarks are being made and it is taking a shorter time to make decisions – nine months instead of 13, in other words, a decrease of nearly one third. This success should set an example for the EU administration. Too much time is needed to make a decision or to provide a response to issues presenting a real challenge, which leads to increased costs or diminished competitiveness. We cannot afford this in times of crisis and should, therefore, move to a certain degree of computerisation in the EU administration. Mr Söderman, who performed the function of the Ombudsman before 2003, has also called for the introduction of such a system.

I would also like to call for an extension of the powers exercised by the Ombudsman to include issues of freedom of the press and the media in Europe. Alternatively, I believe there should be a separate specialised unit within the structure of his organisation that would occupy itself exclusively with this issue. I am aware of the fact that a similar project was once presented by fellow Members from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Today, when the present government in Poland is trying to curtail the freedom of the right-wing press, I support such a project fully.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I have some remarks to make, in my one minute, to the Ombudsman and the Commissioner.

First, in 2010 most of the complaints to the Ombudsman referred to the lack of transparency in the EU administration. I want to urge the Council, which is absent today, and the Commission to use secrecy as an exception and not as a rule. Very often, after reading documents in the so-called ‘secret room’ of the European Parliament, as a Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I pose myself the rhetorical question of what the need is for confidentiality for one document or another.

Second, we also know that the biggest proportion of enquiries in 2010 related to the European Commission and share completely the Ombudsman’s concerns about the high number of unsatisfactory replies by the Commission to his critical remarks. Our own experience in the Committee on Petitions, when dealing with certain unsatisfactory replies from the Commission, shows that his enquiries are not poorly reasoned.

We hope that the further work by the Ombudsman will impact positively on the Union’s administrative culture. Finally, I too would like to thank Ms Iotova for her report.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL). - (NL) Mr President, I wish to compliment Mr Diamandouros for his excellent work. Transparency is unfortunately still an important ground for complaints. As the European Parliament, we are able to discuss this. Together with like-minded Members of this House from all the large political groups, I have been involved in an intensive dialogue with the Commission on the lack of transparency in relation to the composition and workings of its expert groups. We have not received any answer to our questions, either during a plenary debate or by letter. In the end, we had to block the budget item in question yesterday until such time as the Commission complies with our wishes.

Access to documents is a similar case. We face a wall of resistance. The Commission is sticking to its proposals to grant what will, in fact, be less access to documents than provided for by the existing rules. It is therefore no surprise that the Ombudsman last year submitted a special report on this very subject to Parliament. This had been prompted by a complaint concerning the Commission’s refusal to allow access to letters from Porsche to the previous Commissioner, Mr Verheugen, on CO2 emissions from cars. This was a justified request because the letters might have indicated the extent to which there was a conflict of interest between the Commissioner and the motor industry.

It is extraordinarily regrettable that the Commission did nothing to meet the legitimate demands of the Ombudsman in this case. Through its reluctance where openness is concerned, the Commission is creating scope for suspicion on the part of this Parliament and the citizens. I wish the Ombudsman much courage and determination as he continues his activities.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, there is much to praise in the clear and easily comprehensible report of the Ombudsman. The different categories of alleged maladministration were defined precisely and the criteria for admissibility were explained clearly. However, Greek ombudsmen should beware eurosceptics bearing compliments.

The word ‘ombudsman’, I am reliably told, means ‘grievance man’. I am afraid it is the only Swedish word I know. There are many grievances about the European Union among British nationals, but they have little to do with time limits, incorrect applications of procedural rules, requests for information or even that most heinous of all offences, discrimination. They concern loss of sovereignty, net contributions to the budget, embrace of globalism, prescriptive social liberalism and the absence of referendums. I am sure that these would all fail the admissibility criteria, but they are real grievances nevertheless.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, the European Ombudsman vigorously investigates complaints against the institutions and bodies of the European Union. This instrument is necessary to facilitate the free movement of our businesses and citizens. It is also a tremendous guarantee, in particular in response to critics of the Union, who say all too often that it is nothing more than a bureaucratic machine without oversight, which is clearly nonsense. Europe is working hard on itself thanks to the European Ombudsman in particular.

Nonetheless, I should like to mention a finding, which I bitterly regret, in which the Commission comes in for heavy criticism. First, there are the figures: the proportion of inquiries instituted by the Ombudsman into the European Commission is 65% and not 12%.

There are also the stakeholders: many businesses come to see us to tell us they are baffled by the European Commission which turns a deaf ear to their requests, especially as regards access to documents or transparency in decision-making. Not many people can make sense of this.

Finally, let me share my own personal experience with you. I must admit that I have occasionally been shocked by the reactions of some services of the European Commission appearing before the Committee on Petitions. As you know, the Commission tells us its position on petitions, which we always take into consideration and which is necessary. However, we occasionally see representatives of the Commission refuse to answer questions from a Member of Parliament or hide behind clichés and waffle, almost as well as politicians, when faced with citizens advancing their causes.

I would therefore like to remind you that Europe must have a human face, that, behind the administrative problems identified and solved by the Ombudsman are Europeans relieved at being listened to but disappointed by this behaviour and citizens adversely affected by their confrontation with the institutions. This may create feelings of revolt, incomprehension and, in the long run, perhaps, euroscepticism.

I fervently want these criticisms and those of the Ombudsman against the institutions in general to be heard.

  Metin Kazak (ALDE). – (BG) Mr President, I too would like to congratulate Ms Iotova for her diligent work on this report. It monitors the activities of Mr Diamandouros following his re-election in 2010 and, in particular, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which expanded the European Ombudsman’s remit.

The report clearly shows that European citizens are becoming increasingly aware of their basic right to good administration, which is guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I also recommended, on the 15th anniversary of the institution’s creation, for the European Ombudsman to launch a new strategy by 2014, which should be focused on promoting an administrative service culture.

I am pleased to mention that the new Member States are among the top 10 which submitted most complaints in 2010. Bulgaria is in seventh place, which clearly shows that Bulgarian citizens are looking to defend their human rights. I think that the European Ombudsman must support national ombudsmen from the recently admitted Member States in enhancing their competence. It also goes without saying that having access to information is a fundamental, key issue, and European institutions, most of all the Commission, should apply the principles of good governance.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). - (CS) Mr President, Mr Ombudsman, when I read my speech from last year on this topic, I realised that my words were still relevant. The aim of your organisation is to resolve cases of injustice committed by the European bureaucracy more cheaply and in a way that is more accessible to citizens. These are cases that it would not be possible to resolve by normal appeal procedures or judicial review. Your resolution of the problems of complainants should therefore be fundamentally cheaper, quicker and more flexible than a judicial resolution.

In your report, for 2010 I read that you had a budget of EUR 9.3 million last year, and that you registered 2 667 cases. This averages EUR 3 500 per case. In comparison, the European Court of Human Rights last year registered 61 300 cases, and had a budget of EUR 58.4 million. This works out at EUR 953 per case. I know that any comparison is a simplification. I would nevertheless like to ask you for ideas and explanations as to why you are so much more expensive than judicial institutions.

  Ágnes Hankiss (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, in our crisis-ridden world it is difficult – as many of those who have spoken today have said – to overemphasise the importance of transparency. It is clearly no coincidence that the issue of transparency is a key element in both the European Ombudsman’s report and Ms Iotova’s report. This is heartening and welcome news for Europe’s citizens. To be able to cope with the crisis it is very important that they understand what is happening around them and why, and the thinking behind decisions by institutions.

I think one of the most important elements of the Ombudsman’s mission is that he must never be biased. In other words, the Ombudsman must strike a balance between the transparency demanded by citizens and the secrecy required in other cases to protect EU interests.

Why am I telling you this? Because in a certain respect, the establishment of the European External Action Service has created a new situation by bringing European security and defence policy issues within the scope of the Ombudsman, and this is also the area where, alongside legitimate demands for access to information, there are a great many instances of actions that I would sooner class as political marketing and which, in some cases, could pose a threat to our security.

This is why it is particularly important to establish and publicise clear standards concerning confidentiality, because I believe that having clear standards would also give the Ombudsman the necessary resolve and moral authority to opt for confidentiality when the need arises – and we have already seen an example of this.

Allow me to add that we, the Members of this House, are European citizens too. In the course of my work on security policy, for example, I myself have encountered more than once situations where very important Council documents have been classified as confidential and I have not been able to read them. It would have been very useful to see the reasons for this, and I urge the Ombudsman to take up this issue.

Allow me to conclude by quoting from the report, which states: ‘Openness is the rule and secrecy the exception.’

  Nessa Childers (S&D). - Mr President, I should also like to thank the rapporteur. Scrutiny, transparency and freedom of speech are all central tenets of our democratic process. However, freedom of speech is only effective if somebody is there to listen. The European Ombudsman exists to ensure that our citizens are listened to and last year performed that job competently, receiving 2 667 complaints from across Europe.

It is vital that this process be built upon and that it continues. There is, though, much still to be done in the field of transparency in the EU. Lobbying in the European institutions and indeed in many Member States can still sometimes resemble the Wild West. Members should firstly be aware of this anomaly and secondly should work to improve the transparency of our workplace in order to provide an example to other democratic institutions across the EU.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE) . – (PL) Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, it is very nice to hear so much praise. I think it is deserved, Mr Diamandouros. I would just like to make two or three remarks regarding your work itself. It seems to me that since the number of complaints is now going down, it may be worth spending more time on developing the procedures themselves, the system of communication itself, the flow of information and public access to documents. It is also worth considering what is causing the decrease in the number of complaints: is it the result of a continued improvement in the performance of the EU institutions or is it, perhaps, that the public does not find the EU institutions responsive enough?

I voted for you, I endorsed you, and I think it was a very good choice. Let us think, however, what more can be done at the moment to create a better flow of information and better contact. We should not just be resolving complaints, we should be building a better system. I know you are already doing this, and this is important. My fellow Member from the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, Mr Migalski, said that his group is going to abstain from voting on your report because of your budget, because you have so many people and so on. I do think you should be given our support, but we should also expect action which would not only resolve individual cases but would establish certain more general principles.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the openness of decision-making and administration is one of the basic conditions of democracy. Poor and lethargic administration weakens the public’s faith in the entire European Union.

The role of the European Ombudsman in the past 16 years has proven to be an essential one. The option to complain about a wrong administrative decision or, for example, arrogant and unfair treatment on the part of an official, is a preventive measure, and that is important. Unfortunately, the European Union has not as yet established a law on good governance, and there is an urgent need to do so.

I would like to thank the European Ombudsman for shortening the times needed to deal with complaints, and he and his excellent office have done a lot of work in this area. I would also like to praise the Ombudsman for having worked to increase transparency in the European Union. We have a lot do to concerning this matter: the European Union moves at a snail’s pace.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). - Mr President, I welcome the continued efforts made by the Ombudsman to improve transparency and access to information within the European institutions. The reduction in critical remarks delivered in the Ombudsman’s report from 55 in 2007 to 33 in 2010 can be interpreted as an enhancement of transparency within the European institutions.

Secondly, we need to establish a web portal for the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, similar to that of the European Ombudsman’s Office. Such a web portal is of the utmost importance to the committee if we are to increase the amount of admissible applications by our citizens. This would enhance Parliament’s responsiveness to citizens’ complaints with regard to maladministration, as well as their trust in the laws that we make and in their proper implementation.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I also wish to begin by welcoming this report, 15 years after the creation of the institution of the European Ombudsman.

Adjustments have been made through permanent contact with petitioners to meet current requirements. I would remind you here of the decrease in the time required to resolve a complaint and the possibility for the Ombudsman to act by virtue of his office.

I believe that this mechanism has made the functioning of the European Union more transparent. Thus, citizens can now challenge problems existing in administration at European level. Bureaucracy has unfortunately had a negative impact in some situations. Here I wish to stress the refusal of the European Commission to provide complete information on administrative proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman. I was even a shadow rapporteur for such a case. Institutions do not always comply with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding access to documents. This worsens the democratic deficit from which they suffer.

I therefore believe that the Ombudsman should be encouraged to cooperate with the entire European institutional system, including with the specialised agencies. The fall in the number of complaints lodged with the Ombudsman in 2010 is an indication of the need to raise awareness of his work more intensively among citizens. I therefore support the presentation of the annual activity report in an extended framework, involving the other European institutions but also the public.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D) . – (RO) Mr President, transparency, access to information and respect for the rights of European citizens are vital to ensuring confidence between citizens and institutions. When the Ombudsman presents its annual report to the Committee on Petitions, representatives of the Commission, the administration, the European Parliament, the Council and other institutions should also be invited to take part in the discussion.

The complaints received by the Ombudsman in 2010 fall into seven categories: openness – 107 complaints, the role of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties – 51, institutional matters – 46, administration and staff regulations – 39, staff selection procedures – 39, execution of contracts – 24, award of tenders and grants – 20. The largest number of complaints came from Spain, Germany and Poland. 65% of the inquiries opened by the Ombudsman in 2010 concerned the European Commission and 10% the European Personnel Selection Office. Particular attention should be paid to EPSO given that tens of thousands of candidates take part in its competitions.

I call on the Commission and other institutions responsible to improve the current situation as quickly as possible.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, Commissioner, honourable Members of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, thank you for this informative report from an institution which was established for the citizens of Europe. In numerical terms, the report on the background to the maladministration in the context of the activities of the EU institutions is proof of the importance of the work of the Ombudsman.

The analyses contained in the report, which call for more transparency and improvements, greater speed and a change in the often authoritarian approach taken in many areas of the Commission administration, speak for themselves.

I want to focus on one aspect of the report, however, which is of more fundamental significance than might appear at first sight. This is the fact that there has been a decrease in complaints of almost 15% between 2009 and 2010, a positive figure which, however, begs the question whether our national governments and institutions have done, and are continuing to do, all they can to ensure that our citizens throughout Europe are sufficiently aware of this institution and the direct channel to the Committee on Petitions. I doubt the determination of our Member States in this regard.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur Iliana Iotova and the Ombudsman for the annual report and the work done to inform European Union citizens about the opportunities available to them to submit complaints concerning maladministration in the European Union and to encourage citizens to take advantage of their rights. The Ombudsman’s Annual Report pays much attention to the new strategy prepared by the Ombudsman for his 2009-2014 mandate. I particularly welcome the Ombudsman’s efforts to simplify and facilitate procedures, so that it is possible to investigate complaints as quickly as possible, as well as his efforts to cooperate more closely and provide stakeholders and society with useful information in a timely manner and improve institutions’ administrative practices. I notice in the report that, in 2010, in many cases of complaints it was possible to reach amicable solutions, and this once again demonstrates the effectiveness of the Ombudsman and appropriate cooperation with other institutions. I welcome the fact that, in order to inform the public and ensure that institutions learn from their mistakes, each year the Ombudsman publishes on his website a study on the institutions’ follow-up to his remarks.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, last year the current Ombudsman was elected for the next term and will remain in office until the year 2014. Shortly after being re-elected he presented his new strategy of action in the next few years in which, among other issues, he called for strengthening the dialogue with public organisations and individuals that submit complaints, improving the culture of operation in the EU administration and building closer contacts with the Ombudsmen of EU Member States. These three objectives that Mr Diamandouros has set himself deserve recognition and indicate that he takes his duties seriously. Likewise, we should express appreciation of the new system for communicating with the public that includes, among other features, an interactive guide to mechanisms available for securing the fundamental rights of the EU citizens and is available on the Internet in the 23 official languages. In the year 2010 it was used successfully by more than 20 000 people.

The best evidence of the fact that this solution is effective lies in the decreasing number of complaints submitted to the Ombudsman last year in comparison to the year 2009. Popular opinion associates the EU administration with a confusing, over-complicated and bureaucratic machine, full of incomprehensible procedures and inaccessible to the public. I am pleased that thanks to the work being done the Ombudsman, some members of the public have been able to see for themselves that it does not have to be like that at all.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE) . – (PL) Mr President, I have a question for Mr Poręba. Since you have rated the Ombudsman’s activities very highly, and I agree completely with this evaluation, I would like to know why Mr Migalski, who belongs to the same party as you, the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, announced that the ECR Group will abstain from voting on the report, that too much money is being allocated and too many people employed, and in total, the way I understand it, why he does not rate the speech made today very highly?

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, in my response to Ms Kolarska-Bobińska I would like to point out that there is a certain difference of opinion within the ECR Group with respect to this issue. I assure you that this difference will be reflected today in the final vote.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to join the others in congratulating the Ombudsman and his colleagues. The data for 2009 reflect a decrease in the number of complaints, and what is more, 58% of those complaints – as has already been mentioned –were lodged online, which inspires optimism. This is a clear reflection of the fact that this institution is operating successfully. The interactive guide that has also been mentioned here today is available on the Internet site and should inspire the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament to create a similar tool. At the same time, of some concern are the data showing that as many as 65% of the total number of complaints were about the European Commission, and that 33% of all inquiries launched dealt with violations of the principle of transparency, especially as regards access to documents.

The relatively young institution of the Ombudsman is drawing constructively from its experience and is contributing toward promoting good practice of administration at European level.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, we all benefit from having somebody looking over our shoulder and making sure we perform appropriately. In this regard, the Ombudsman is doing a very good job in holding the Commission and the other institutions to account, particularly when citizens have complaints.

When you consider that there are 500 million citizens in the European Union, the number of complaints are few. Whether this is because they have nothing to complain about or are not aware of their rights is a very debatable point. However, the Ombudsman does seem to be doing a good job with those that discover his office, and his desire to create a culture of service is entirely appropriate.

I want to conclude by asking one question. He had to make a special report to Parliament regarding the failure of the Commission to respond to findings; it took them 15 months, when the time limit was three months. Is he aware of anybody within the Commission being held to account for this and of penalties being imposed as a result?

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome the Ombudsman’s presence here; we have had good exchanges in the past and, while I do not serve on the Petitions Committee now, I keep an eye on his work. Mr Diamandouros, I think it is important to say – because it is in the report – that while only 27% of complaints were appropriate to your office, you did actually deal with all of the complaints. You did not leave people without some form of redress, but redirected them where it was more appropriate.

I think that is important; it is also true to say that I suspect it is only the best informed and best motivated who actually go to the Ombudsman with their complaint. There are many others who, when they fail to get a response from the Commission, do nothing at all.

You will be dealing with a complaint from an Irish constituent of mine in your 2011 report. In that case you found that the Commission had failed to respond; you acted very swiftly, and we have had a response. I wonder, when there is alleged maladministration, is it the case that the Commission just ignores emails and hopes that people will go away? If so, it is entirely wrong.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, first of all I would like to express my appreciation of the work of the Office of the European Ombudsman. The fact that in 2010 more than 2 500 citizens, companies, associations, citizens and organisations turned to the Office of the Ombudsman with complaints suggests that citizens and organisations have become accustomed to using this European institution. Of course, not all the submissions with which citizens have turned to the European Ombudsman fall under the competence of his Office. Nevertheless, the submitted report confirms the relevance of this institution, in particular in relation to the correct and professional assessment of complaints from citizens regarding the procedures of the European institutions in question. The acceleration of proceedings when considering complaints compared with the previous year testifies to the improvement in and greater efficiency of the work of the Office and this serves, I believe, to confirm the good management of this Office. Going forward it would possibly be even more constructive if the Office of the Ombudsman could produce recommendations for European institutions which would help them to avoid commonly-repeated errors in their work.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, I kept track of your work during your previous term of office. You inspired my profound respect even then, when I saw you in action and, also, in unusually difficult situations. I am pleased to see that more and more members of the public recognise both your office and you personally. This means that communication with the public is improving consistently. I hope this will continue. I hope more and more of the people of Europe will be aware of whom they should turn to with their problems. I categorically disagree with any plans for cutting the financing of the Ombudsman’s office, since it employs the best professionals. It is not that there are too many staff, rather that there are too few. More cases could be settled if the Ombudsman had more specialists of this level working for him. Besides, due to the fact that cases are handled at a very high level, owing to your activities, the citizens’ awareness of their rights in respect of the EU institutions and the legal culture in the European Union is reaching new standards of quality. Thank you and congratulations!

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I really appreciate all the interventions. I would like to ask you a favour, Mr President. Could you pass to two Members of this Parliament my answers, as they have left the room? One is Mr Chountis, who mentioned that the Commission has an old-fashioned view on democracy. I do not buy that, and I think that the opposite is true. Certainly, talking about my colleague Maroš Šefčovič, he is very active and he is in close cooperation with the Ombudsman, so no old-fashioned views at all.

I am not saying that we cannot just do more, but that is at stake. I really agree with Ms Mazzoni, who made a statement that is closer to reality, talking about good faith and goodwill. The other issue that is quite interesting: Mr Migalski made a remark about freedom of the media, and I have good news for him. Just ten days ago I set up a high-level group for the freedom of the media and pluralism and asked them to produce a report within a year, and I am certain that we will be back in Parliament with that report. By the way, ‘high-level’ in this context really means high-level. The Chair is taken by Ms Vīķe-Freiberga, the former President of Latvia, and the group includes Ms Herta Däubler, the former Justice Minister of Germany; Professor Maduro, the former Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice; and Ben Hammersley, a very famous journalist. So I am looking forward to that result, and I am certain that the honourable Member and his colleagues will also be interested.

Just a couple of remarks about the lack of transparency of the Commission which a couple of your honourable Members have touched on. I got that message; I do not agree. The Commission thoroughly examines all the inquiries addressed to it by the Ombudsman: there can be no doubt about that. The Commission grants requests for access to documents in more than 80% of cases. In only 2% of cases the applicant makes a confirmatory application, and these applications (which is quite remarkable) are generally made by law firms. Speaking about my former life, my experience of law firms is that they are very constructive and also very active, and this is a diplomatic way of saying what is at stake. NGOs and lobbyists are also quite active in that field.

The main reason – and I would like you to pay attention to this – for refusing access to documents is to protect ongoing investigations and the commercial interests of economic operators. These are legitimate interests which may prevent disclosure of documents. So this is not a lack of transparency; it reflects the need to strike the right balance between countervailing interests.

On the subject of the deadlines laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, a significant number of requests – particularly those made by law firms (to mention them again: after all, this is their bread and butter) and NGOs – concern large volumes of documents or complete files of tens of thousands of pages, and I have experience with that. These are truckloads of documents, so to say. All those documents must be assessed before a decision on disclosure can be taken, and it is quite obvious that such an analysis cannot be completed within the timeframes of the regulation I mentioned before.

  Nikiforos Diamandouros, Ombudsman. − Mr President, let me first say three things. I wish to thank all the Members of Parliament for their very positive, warm appraisal and approval of my report. I am deeply grateful for the very broad positive response that I have received. I am deeply grateful for the response that I have received concerning my efforts to promote a culture of service and for the work that I am trying to do to promote public service principles. So I am very much in your debt for that, and I also want to thank Ms McGuinness for her specific report and reflection on my own work.

The second thing that I wish to emphasise is to try and rectify what appears to be a misunderstanding, and I take responsibility for what must be a misunderstanding. Many members of this body are under the assumption that the decline that has been registered in my complaints is an indication of some kind of deterioration. Let me just be very clear. Over the years this Parliament has been insisting that the Ombudsman should try to reduce the number of inadmissible complaints that come to him. We have now reduced that number by 25%. The decline is therefore a success, due to the interactive guide introduced in 2009 which has helped 20 000 citizens to avoid going to the wrong place in the first instance and to be helped with where to go. So may I please insist that the decline is in fact not a failure but a success, and I am perfectly happy to explain that.

Concerning the budget, let me just point out that both in 2009 and 2011 I asked for no budget increase and no increase in my staff, precisely because I am trying to be in line with austerity. If we look at figures in terms of the budget, then I ask that we also take into account the 10 000 (more or less) requests for information and the 20 000 people who have used the interactive guide, to take into account the kind of work that the Ombudsman is doing that goes way beyond the individual complaints that are being handled. This having been said, let me also thank Ms Kroes for her own remarks, and let me just try and respond to two things.

First of all, the Ombudsman needs to be – and should be – fair, and fairness means allocating responsibility where appropriate. It is indeed the case that the Commission, being the largest institution of the Union, will necessarily receive the largest number of complaints. This is not an indication of failed administration at that level by the Commission. This notwithstanding, of course there are problems, and in fact I wish to confirm that.

This having been said, Commissioner, let me just clarify the point concerning the special report last year. The special report came to you not because of the substance of the case but because of the failure of the Commission to cooperate with me in good faith and sincerely. This was the very first time in 15 years I had had to do it, and it regrettably had to do with the Commissioner, who at that time had left. Because of the substance, yes, but I did not submit it after it had been closed, because I was addressing the procedural problem of 15 months’ delay. I want to be clear about that.

Finally I want to thank you for your references to the principles of public service. I can tell this body that I will be issuing a leaflet in the next month that will be addressed to every single member of the staff of the European institutions. This is a guide to help them with how to deal with complaints and, therefore, how to help citizens. I am moving forward with this, it is ready and is in fact being distributed.

Ms Auken, thank you for your question, I will look into the matter and I will provide you with figures. I have to look into that.

The question about public media was addressed by the Commissioner. Let me say to her that, if her expert group is in need of further information, I remain at her disposal.

A final point: complicated but succinct. There are 500 million citizens in the European Union: that is correct. But how many of them need to have contact with the European institutions is really the critical question. I suggest that the vast majority of citizens of the European Union do not need to have contact with the European institutions and therefore to have complaints that will come to me, primarily because the bread and butter issues that have to do with the Ombudsman are at national level, involving the welfare state. We do not have issues about health, education, prisons, police, social security or retirement, therefore the vast majority of the 500 million – mercifully – do not need to come to me. For that very reason I would like to at least inject this corrective into the deliberations of this body.

Finally, let me reiterate that I am enormously grateful for the support that this body has given me over the years and for its continuing support to me for resources and for my budget. I shall continue to do my very best to help Parliament to help me apply and promote good administration. I look forward to working with it and working with the other institutions, including the Commission.

  Iliana Malinova Iotova, rapporteur. – (BG) Mr President, I wish to start with a huge word of thanks to all my colleagues who were involved in today’s intense discussion. In actual fact, this is perhaps the only report in the European Parliament which is aimed directly at Europe’s 500 million citizens.

It demonstrates not only the increased interest in the Ombudsman’s work, but also the awareness of how important this work is and the responsibilities he has. The very fact that some colleagues wanted to increase the Ombudsman’s powers, including freedom of the media, provides clear evidence of this. I sincerely hope that, together with the working group announced a short time ago by Commissioner Kroes, we will have opportunities to achieve more in this direction since the lack of media freedom in Europe is really assuming alarming proportions.

There is work to be done on public democracy in Europe. You see that even the fine initiative enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, put forward by citizens for a new European legislation, is stalling. This is already the second year that it cannot be implemented. This is why the Ombudsman’s work is extremely important, as is the work of Parliament’s Committee on Petitions.

I am really sorry that Commissioner Šefčovič is not in the Chamber today because he could have heard numerous definite and important proposals tabled by MEPs. I hope, Commissioner, that you will pass on to him all our proposals and comments. I wish every success both to the Commission and to the Ombudsman in his fine work.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12.30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The report evaluates the activity of the European Ombudsman in 2010, but it can be emphasised that the most important part of the report is the new strategy of the Office, published on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of its establishment. In 2010, the Ombudsman recorded 2 667 complaints from citizens, businesses, associations, non-governmental organisations and regional offices (3 098 in 2009) and processed a total of 2 727 complaints. Of the investigations commenced by the Ombudsman in 2010, 65% concerned the European Commission (291 investigations), which represents an increase on the figure of 56% (191 investigations) seen in 2009, a trend I do not welcome. I agree with the Ombudsman that we should insist on providing information and documents as a basic principle in the EU, with openness the rule and secrecy the exception. Personally, I agree with the Ombudsman’s opinion that much work still remains to be done in terms of convincing officials that defensive behaviour towards the Ombudsman represents a lost opportunity for their organisations, and risks harming the EU’s overall image. Of the investigations concluded, 33% included refusals to provide information and refusals to provide access to EU documents, which I personally consider a high number. We must demand greater levels of transparency and openness in the future.

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

6. Conclusions of the European Council meeting (23 October 2011) (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission: Conclusions of the European Council meeting held on 23 October 2011.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are aware that we are witnessing groundbreaking events in the European Union. We would like the decisions made to be decisions which really are for the future, capable of changing the situation in the euro area, in the European Union as a whole and also in the global economy. This is why we shall listen with great attention to the reports by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso.

Welcome to both of you, dear Presidents – President Van Rompuy and President Barroso. Thank you for coming only six hours after the last conclusions of the Euro Summit.

  Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. − Mr President, dear colleagues, good morning, as I said to the journalist only a few hours ago.

All the Union’s institutions and governments have been expending significant political capital on dealing with the debt crisis. From a series of national debt crises, the situation was evolving into a systemic concern, threatening the stability of the eurozone as whole, and this threat had to be contained. This is what we have done.

Last night was a crucial political step which still requires, as after any such meeting, technical and legal follow-up. Sometimes I hear complaints that markets do not give democracies the time we need to get things approved. There is some truth in this. But I am deeply convinced the markets will give us the time we need when they see a clear direction and a clear determination.

We therefore took – yesterday and on Sunday – important decisions on the five fronts where action is needed. The first front: a sustainable solution for the Greek debt. We want to put Greece on track so that, by 2020, it will have reduced its public debt to 120% of GDP. Since July, market conditions have worsened. The new programme includes an extra effort by the official sector. A new EU IMF programme of up to 100 billion will be put in place by the end of the year. It also includes a voluntary contribution by private creditors who had lent to Greece. It was agreed by them last night and amounts to a nominal discount of 50% of the Greek national debt.

The second front: a sufficient firewall against contagion, thanks to an agreement to multiply up to five-fold the firepower of the European Financial Stability Facility rescue fund. The leverage could be around one trillion euros, under certain assumptions about market conditions, the set-up and investors’ responsiveness in view of economic policies.

We have identified two approaches for the EFSF. The first one aims at giving credit enhancement to sovereign bonds issued by Member States. Under the second approach, the Fund could set up one or several special purpose vehicles to finance its operations. Each option could lead to leverage of up to four or five times. They can be used simultaneously, so as to increase the robustness of the financing strategy.

The third front: we foster confidence in the European banking sector. We approved a coordinated scheme to recapitalise banks across Europe. The ratio of highest quality capital will be increased to 9%. This will enable the banks to withstand shocks, which is important in the current exceptional circumstances. State guarantees to improve the longer-term funding will safeguard the flow of credit to the real economy. This is essential for the prospects for growth.

The fourth front: further fiscal consolidation by those Member States which need more sustainable public finances and more structural reforms. In this context, the Euro Summit welcomes the clear commitment of Italy to achieve these objectives and to abide by the timetable it set itself. This ambitious package – in particular the measures to increase competiveness and to liberalise the economy – now needs implementation. We also commend Italy’s commitment to achieve a balanced budget by 2013, and we take note of the plan to increase the retirement age to 67 years by 2026. The way to achieve this should be defined by the end of this year.

Finally, there is a raft of measures taken at Union level to stimulate growth, about which I will say more later.

I have worked hard with all the European Council members – and in particular the President of the European Commission – to achieve this result. Together, the five elements constitute a comprehensive package and are all interrelated. For instance, the banking problems and the sovereign debt tensions were feeding each other; and we should consider the fact that achieving growth is the best way to reduce public debt. Everything is in everything and vice versa.

Let me take one step back. I should like to underline that the decisions taken by the four summit meetings since Sunday are part of a process which has lasted for more than a year. All along we had a double duty: dealing with the current crisis and preventing a new one from arising; taking emergency actions, like setting up rescue funds, while also putting together, step-by-step, a new economic governance to help avoid future problems.

You too have participated in that process, for instance through the legislation on the supervision of the financial sector and, more recently, the ‘six pack’ on economic governance. Your debates and the work of your committees have also furnished many of the ideas that have shaped this process and, in some cases, decisively improved the outcome.

Why the acceleration over these past months? Before the summer, monetary union was also in a difficult situation. That is why I convened a Euro Summit on 21 July, which decided on a significant package to reduce the debt burden for Greece and to stop the risk of contagion, thanks to more flexible use of the EFSF rescue fund. The immediate political reaction to the July package was positive. However, during the summer, some doubts crept in about the package’s implementation. Although these proved unfounded in the end – all 17 parliaments duly approved it within three months – the harm was done. Market volatility began to grow, and this during the very days when brinkmanship in the US Congress about their potential default was adding to the flames. Market speculation can sometimes become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On top of this, we have had to work since July in a different economic climate. Global economic growth is slowing dramatically, not only in Europe but also in the United States and some emerging countries. It became necessary to take further measures, both for Greece and to stop contagion, as well as to address weaknesses in the banking system.

I should also like to underline that stimulating growth is an essential part of the package. Sunday’s European Council discussed this extensively and adopted measures to stimulate growth and create jobs. Beyond the immediate crisis, we have all along kept sight of the broader picture. In the end only sustained economic growth can bring back confidence, create jobs and absorb deficits.

Let me come to some remarks of a general and institutional nature regarding all the economic measures. First of all, the European Union is putting in place a multi-faceted reform of economic governance. People who only focus on one or other aspect, and rush to denounce them as insufficient, miss the overall picture and the interactions between the various elements. It is the overall combination of institutional pressure, peer pressure and market pressure that will help us to avoid getting into such difficulties again.

All three forms of pressure have been enhanced: institutional pressure above all, thanks to the financial sector supervision and the six-pack legislation strengthening fiscal and macro-economic surveillance. I am very happy about this achievement and your improvements to it. We took a further step last night in agreeing that, for euro area Member States in an excessive deficit procedure, the Commission and the Council will be able to examine national budgets and adopt an opinion on them before their adoption by the relevant national parliament.

Peer pressure has also become more effective, not just because of the new instruments, such as the European Semester, but also as a result of events. Today, no government can afford to underestimate the possible impact of public debts or bubbles in another eurozone country on its own economy; they would be punished by the voters. If one compares this situation with that of ten years ago, the pressure which leaders put on each other has become much more intense, as we have seen in recent days.

Thirdly, market pressure has also increased. Markets will never again treat all sovereign debt in the eurozone as equal. They were asleep in the euro’s first decade and, even if they are currently overreacting, the markets will not go back to sleep again.

Let me stress that these three types of pressure to induce responsible behaviour reinforce each other. In fact, there is already a powerful interplay at work. To be even more explicit (knowing some of your fears), political pressure within the European Council or the Council does not undo the institutional or market pressure; no, it strengthens their impact. The President of the Commission and I both have this experience. We all work in the same direction: sound budgets, lower debts, sustainable growth. That is the result the citizens expect.

My second institutional remark concerns the eurozone summits. Some have expressed the fear that these will lead to divisions between Member States. My reasoning is simple. It is perfectly natural that those who share a common currency take some decisions together. In fact, one of the origins of the current crisis is that almost everybody had underestimated the extent to which the economies of the eurozone are linked, and we are now remedying that. Moreover, monetary policy is at the heart of economic policy, and the 17 have a common monetary policy. Yet we need a policy mix. Monetary policy alone is not enough to deal with the situation. We cannot have a common currency and a common monetary policy and leave everything else to the states involved. That is why the 17 will have to go further.

Let me be clear: the eurozone is not a derogation from the European Union, it is part of it. The Treaty is quite clear: it is the Member States which have not joined the euro which are referred to as ‘Member States with a derogation’. And, of course, most of them will in due course join the euro.

However, it is vitally important to safeguard the integrity of the single market among the 27. It gives the Union cohesion and is the very basis of our prosperity. So we must keep the two configurations as close as possible, in a spirit of trust.

I will personally do my utmost to avoid divisions between the 17 and the 27. Not only is it my intention to organise Euro Summits, if possible, immediately following a European Council meeting, but it is also the case that the Commission and Parliament will continue to play their roles.

A third and final institutional remark: the Euro Summit decided to reflect on a further strengthening of economic convergence within the euro area and on improving fiscal discipline and deepening economic union, including exploring the possibility, should this prove necessary, of limited treaty changes. The full European Council will revert to this issue in December on the basis of a report by myself, in close collaboration with Presidents Barroso and Juncker. Of course, any proposal for a treaty revision would also be a matter for your Parliament to consider, as indeed are other possible measures.

My intention is that we discuss first the ‘what’ before we discuss the ‘how’. First we should examine the goals and only afterwards the legal instruments required to get there. Treaty changes are difficult. Improvements are possible, and it can be useful to give the public and the markets a sense of our medium-term direction. But a treaty change is not the right way to deal with an immediate financial crisis. So we have to get the different time perspectives right.

This brings me to my concluding remark, on our use of time. The European Union is often charged with coming up with too little too late. The markets have the luxury of moving at the speed of a click of a mouse. Political processes, even if they are working at their most rapid, cannot deliver so speedily. Approval of the July package by the 17 national parliaments in two-and-a-half months is impressive by political standards, even if it is slow by market standards.

As a Parliament yourself, having been in a position to use several months to bring the six-pack negotiations to a favourable conclusion, you will appreciate the importance of sound parliamentary scrutiny and negotiation. Moreover, at some point the request to always be faster is just not credible. In politics one needs time to bring everybody on board and tie diverse interests together in a solid package. Time is the politician’s cement.

Yet it is crucial that we put in place rules and procedures that will anticipate problems in the future and prevent them from arising. And it is also crucial that we develop emergency procedures enabling a more speedy and flexible reaction. Improving Europe’s capacity to act is the best sign of mutual trust we can give to the public, the markets and ourselves.

(Applause)

  José Manuel Barroso , President of the Commission. − Mr President, President of the European Council, honourable Members, following a long but constructive meeting that was concluded just a few hours ago, I am pleased to stand before you this morning and confirm that, today, Europe is closer to resolving its economic and financial crisis and getting back on the path to growth. The Euro Summit took solid and substantial steps that should enable Europe to turn a corner.

Ahead of this European Council, the Commission demanded a comprehensive approach. We insisted that the different aspects of the crisis should be tackled together and not in a piecemeal, purely reactive fashion. We set this out in the Roadmap to Stability and Growth which I presented to you on 12 October and also sent to Heads of State and Government at the same time. This Roadmap was very largely supported by this Parliament, for which I thank you; I am pleased to inform you that its five elements have been comprehensively addressed at this European Council.

We know that agreements are not an end point. They mean the beginning of a long path of hard work. But today we have a more ambitious platform on which to build Europe’s future growth. Let me take the five elements – briefly – one by one.

First, on Greece, the solution found this morning includes a credible and appropriate degree of private-sector involvement. This will ease market pressure on Greece and allow the country to continue its programmes of reforms. We are determined to conclude work on a second financial assistance programme by the end of this year.

Second, the agreement on the leveraging of the EFSF means that we have also maximised the potential of our backstops. The mix of providing credit enhancement and maximised funding arrangements will increase the EFSF’s leverage effect up to four or five times. The European Commission had concretely proposed, since January of this year, that the EFSF should be reinforced and provided with more firepower. Increasing the credibility of our firewalls is the single most crucial element of our crisis resolution efforts: the element that underpins the credibility of all our other actions.

Third, on banks: the decisions taken yesterday by Member States will pave the way for a restoration of confidence in the European banking sector. We are working to design an approach for medium- and long-term funding of banks, while also requiring banks to hold a significantly higher capital ratio after taking account of sovereign debt exposures.

The Commission will continue to work hand-in-hand with the European Banking Authority, the ECB and the EIB to implement these measures through a fully coordinated approach at European Union level.

I am also pleased that Italy has given strong commitments to undertake further structural reforms. This is confirmed not only in a letter that the President of the Council of Ministers of Italy sent to President van Rompuy and myself, but also in the very clear conclusions endorsed by all the Heads of State and Government of the euro area. It is now imperative that Italy implement these commitments fully, and according to a clear and coherent timetable. The Commission was specifically entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring these efforts.

This is where we stand on the most urgent issues. The Summit decisions give us a solid platform from which to continue our work. I am also particularly pleased that the Summit conclusions highlighted the role of the Community method and of the Commission in economic governance. In effect, Heads of State and Government have pledged to build on the measures of the ‘six pack’ and the European Semester by strengthening the Commission’s role in assessing, monitoring and coordinating national economic policies and budgets.

But we will now go beyond the legislation recently adopted by this Parliament. The Commission is committed to a true economic Union through increased convergence. Today I can announce to you that, next month, we will present a comprehensive package on further deepening European Union and euro area economic governance. This will include: a codecision regulation linking surveillance with EFSF and ESM assistance on the basis of Article 136 of the Treaty; a further codecision regulation on deeper fiscal surveillance, also based on Article 136 of the Treaty – which means it is up to the European Parliament to decide, with the Council, on the basis of our proposals; a communication on the external representation of the euro on the basis of Article 138 of the Treaty, and a Green Paper on euro stability bonds, as announced in my State of the Union speech. We will also anticipate, in this package, the Annual Growth Survey, to give even more coherence and focus to the preparation of next year’s economic policies.

This package will give direction to the moves towards integration and convergence. It will give energy to our joint efforts – the efforts of all the institutions – and it will do so while upholding the principle of prioritising the Community method. In this context, the independent and objective authority of the Commission is even more important – a view often expressed by this Parliament.

Today, I can announce to you that I intend to entrust Olli Rehn with a reinforced status and additional working instruments. He is to become Commission Vice-President for economic and monetary affairs and the euro. This is the best way to guarantee independence, objectivity and efficiency in the exercise of the Commission’s responsibility of coordination, surveillance and enforcement in the area of the economic governance of the Union and of the euro area in particular.

I think it is also important and relevant, not only from a substantive but also from a symbolic point of view – and symbols are important – that by having a Commissioner especially dedicated to the euro we assert that we want euro governance to take place within the Community method, and with the Community institutions.

(Applause)

At the same time I believe that it is also important to ensure the credibility –and further reinforce the independence and objectivity – of all our technical work, not only in terms of economic preparations, but also in terms of the independent collection of statistical data. I will therefore entrust responsibility for Eurostat to the Commissioner responsible for audit, Algirdas Šemeta. These decisions will be transmitted to this House before the November plenary session, and both Olli Rehn and Algirdas Šemeta are ready to appear before the relevant parliamentary committee.

Financial stability, economic governance: all this is of paramount importance, but we should never forget that our goal is to promote inclusive and sustainable growth and employment. On Sunday the European Council devoted a great part of its work to this, and I am pleased to have presented my vision – the vision of the European Commission – to all the Heads of State and Government. I am happy to say that most of these proposals are now reflected in the conclusions of the European Council.

The Commission is now working on the proposals I presented in my State of the Union address and in my announcement to this House of the Commission’s Roadmap to Stability and Growth. They include: getting agreement on the Single Market Act by the end of 2012; fully implementing the Services Directive, and rapidly adopting our proposals to temporarily increase co-financing rates in countries under adjustment programmes. I am happy that the Council has now reached this agreement, which is so important for the more vulnerable countries. I take this opportunity to urge the Council, once again, to reach agreement on the programme for food aid for the most deprived persons.

(Applause)

I think it is unacceptable that a time of social crisis, such as we have now in so many areas of Europe, is precisely the moment when, because of lack of decision on this matter, we put some of the most vulnerable people in our societies at risk.

For its part, the Commission has also pledged to fast-track a number of proposals. For instance, on 30 November we will put forward a proposal on facilitating access to venture capital as part of the Single Market Act. On 13 December we will propose the modernisation of the recognition of professional qualifications. Before the end of this year the Commission will propose a Youth Opportunities Initiative to boost youth employment, also building on the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF). So fast-tracking these measures – we are, for instance, very committed to speeding up everything regarding our digital agenda – is not just about recovering the growth we have lost over the last three years. It is about giving millions of Europeans hope in their future. It is about restoring their trust and confidence in our social market economy.

Working in close cooperation with the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and the President of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, I will contribute to a report that will also include some options for Treaty change. I will consult widely with this House on the issue. I will meet the Committee on Foreign Affairs and take part in other debates, as discussed earlier this morning by your Conference of Presidents. The European Parliament has to be fully involved in such major changes.

The Commission has argued for many months that, to complete our monetary union with an economic union, we need stronger governance in the euro area. We need more integration, more discipline, more convergence. I have always stated that any possible Treaty change should not be seen as the immediate solution to the current crisis. But it is true that, by working to embed stricter discipline and stronger governance into the euro area in particular, we may help to prevent a future crisis.

While deeper integration of the euro area is essential, it must be done in a way that keeps the entire European Union strong. We do not want artificial divisions between the Member States of the euro area and all the other Member States of the European Union. The euro should remain open to all Member States who may join in the future.

The reinforcement of the governance of the euro area must be done in a way that ensures the integrity of the Single Market and the whole Community acquis. This coherence and compatibility can only be achieved through the Community institutions, because they are the ones mandated to act in the interests of all our Member States and our citizens in a rule-based – indeed Treaty-based – way.

I am particularly pleased that the role of the Commission in ensuring coherence between the euro area and the 27 Member States was clearly recognised in the European Council conclusions, particularly as regards the need to maintain a level playing field in the internal market.

The bold decisions taken over the last days, and indeed over the last weeks and months, allow us to take a message to our partners at the G20 summit in Cannes of a Europe that is determined, that is responsible, that is united. Europe will push, at the G20, for an ambitious action plan that can address the challenges and imbalances that are still hindering growth at the global level. Europe strives to lead the global crisis response at the G20 but, of course, we will not have the credibility to lead if we can not show – as we have shown – that we are able to move towards a real solution for our own problems.

By the end of this year, the Commission will have presented all its proposals on overhauling the banking system, in line with our G20 commitments. That means over 30 pieces of legislation, all of which aim to make the sector more responsible and to restore its position as a service to the real economy. I know how much this Parliament is committed to this agenda, and I thank you for your constant support.

Europe is also the first constituency in the G20 to have proposed a financial transaction tax, which we shall present at the G20 summit in Cannes. I believe that the protest movements we have witnessed in recent weeks, from Madrid to Manhattan, show that this is the kind of action people expect from their leaders to ensure that the financial sector contributes to society.

(Applause)

This type of response is of course most effective on a global scale, where it can be used to address global challenges such as the fight against poverty. This is a message I will push strongly for in Cannes.

To close, I would like to say that today the European Union is showing that we can unite in the most challenging of times. We will demonstrate our unity, our solidarity and our determination for a European renewal. It is clear that growth and prosperity will not be restored in a day. As I said in this Parliament in my State of the Union address, this is a marathon, not a sprint. But today we are witnessing a level of determination that should give hope and confidence to us all.

The Commission will continue to make proposals for a Community way out of this crisis. I know I can count on your continued support and I thank you for the support you have already shown.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, to start with, I would like to point out that in life, one can either see the glass as half full or half empty. I see the glass as half full. I would like to thank you for the work you have done over the last 48 hours, because as a farmer, I know that it is not always the right horse that gets the oats, and this morning I would like to give you the oats and tell you ...

(Laughter and applause)

If he does not like oats, he can give them to the Commissioners; no problem there, a few of them like them.

The elements that I picked up straightaway from your speech, and which I want to reiterate here, are that we are dealing with the banks, we are not doing enough to challenge the rich, you understand what I mean by that, but above all, and I thank you for saying it, we need to take care of the poorest. It would be outrageous if we failed to find a solution concerning the Food Distribution Programme for the Most Deprived Persons before the winter months.

(Applause)

Some people thought that everything would be sorted out by Monday. I do not think anyone here in this House believed that, since we are responsible men and women. However, we were still apprehensive, and late last night I watched the news to see whether we would effectively have an even deeper crisis this morning or, as I have often said, whether we would start to see the end of the crisis take shape. I believe this Council has at least come up with an initial solution to the crisis, and I congratulate both of you – I know that it is not easy. Undoubtedly it does not go far enough, but I will come back to this.

I also wish to highlight the progress made by the 17 countries in the euro area. Over recent weeks, we have seen the 17 countries in the euro area being criticised by those who are not part of it. I would like to point out, in this Parliament, that we are all Europeans, whether we are inside or outside the euro area. Nevertheless, we have duties and rights, and those who took centre stage the most were the 17. Here too I believe we have made progress.

With regard to solidarity with Greece, following the release by the Troika of a new tranche of loans, the agreement announced last night with the banks sees 50% of the debt being written off. This is an achievement. The increase of the European Financial Stability Facility’s firepower is a step in the right direction and, as everyone knows, one of the trickiest aspects of the negotiation. The agreement of the 17 on this point is absolutely crucial. By ensuring that this Fund acts as a credit insurance for investors who buy loan certificates from countries deemed vulnerable, the resources of the Stability Fund will be increased. The third area in which progress has been made is bank recapitalisation. I believe that we have already referred to this.

Consequently, the European Council and the euro area have kept their promises for the short term and for part – a small part, I would stress – of the medium term. My group encourages you to progress even more quickly, and you are not on holiday as far as I understand. Tomorrow morning further progress will have to be made.

The most important thing is to adopt a new model of economic governance, without which the euro cannot work effectively in the long run. We say the same things every day here, but we can see that by dint of repeating ourselves, some things are starting to be done. This integration and this European policy are an absolute necessity. I note that the countries which are the first to ask the euro area to take strong action have, for years and even decades, vigorously rejected any proposal for fiscal harmonisation. They are quite simply being inconsistent.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European project is not about imposing something on someone. The European project is not about placing anyone under supervision, nor about governing with no regard for the democratic balance of powers. However, the rules must be complied with, Mr Barroso, and we must ensure that the measures that have been accepted and signed on paper are truly applied in practice.

The European project and the strategy for Europe are about an ambition: that of offering the 500 million inhabitants the chance to live with dignity. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) does not want us to depend in future on Chinese and Brazilian investment, but to draw on our own work and our own know-how. What the PPE Group wants is to map out the route that will lead to that outcome, and that requires a shared European sovereignty between all those who want it.

Mr Van Rompuy, yesterday you made good decisions, difficult and brave decisions. Nonetheless, these measures are not the end result of a plan to exit the crisis, they are merely the beginning. I call on the Member States, I call on Members of Parliament, both national and European, and I also call on our fellow citizens to agree to further political integration.

I call on this Parliament and, Mr Barroso, on the European Commission, to carry on defending the EU model, which is a model of inclusion and not exclusion. I hope that next week, the G20 will respect the decisions that Europe has taken. For that to happen, though, they must be sure that we will not stop halfway. We need more fiscal and social integration, even if it is not written in the Treaty. We need to move forward in that area. We cannot afford to wait 10 years, to wait until we have amended the Treaty. We must adopt rules of procedure if the Treaty cannot be implemented quickly.

I think that we are in the process of proving that in the difficult moments of managing a crisis, we can make progress without respecting the Treaty to the letter. And that was a little painful for us in the European Parliament. We felt to some extent that we had been forgotten. However I do think, Mr Barroso, and you said so this morning, that you are applying what we voted for here.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what are the realities? The realities are three decisions that are not final decisions, but that still await implementation. This summit is evidence of progress, however we still await the solutions.

It was decided to recapitalise banks by June 2012, so as to stabilise them when the haircut is imposed. There is to be a 50% haircut, however the banks still have to agree. So, we still do not have a solution. With regard to the leveraging of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) – two options are under discussion, the modalities of which are to be drawn up by the Euro Group by November, according to paragraph 19 of the conclusions. These are the three key decisions produced at the end of this night. These are three significant areas of progress.

The President-in-Office of the Council now tells us that a process that has taken over a year has finally reached a conclusion. Yes, that is true. If you, Mr Van Rompuy, and the 17 Heads of Government of the euro monetary union had not taken the measures you did a year ago, then we would not be where we are today. That is the problem with Europe.

(Applause)

The social imbalance we have in Europe lives on. I read here in paragraph 5 of the conclusions: It is of fundamental importance that the budgetary adjustments should be implemented as planned without compromise. Fine I would have liked to see a statement included indicating that tax evasion in Europe would be pursued without compromise and, likewise, that financial transaction taxes would be introduced.

(Applause)

We will not succeed in building Europe on the foundations of social inequality. Because this summit is an interim step, I would urge the following: the same Heads of State or Government who, under the pressure of the actual circumstances, have now once again approved many billions – hundreds of billions in fact – in an effort to stabilise the banks, nearly lose their reason when we in the Committee on Budgets demand a small increase in the Social Fund or Globalisation Adjustment Fund. These are signals that make people in Europe extremely insecure.

(Applause)

Mr Barroso, you have talked about cooperation with Parliament. You referred to the Community method. I was able to observe the President-in-Office of the Council while you spoke: your remarks elicited a slight smile from him. I believe that this also reflects the attitude within the Council. Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states: ‘The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.’ Two countries have an opt-out: Denmark and the United Kingdom. All other Member States committed themselves to the introduction of the euro. What is the point of establishing a club of 17 countries, while the rest, all of whom are subject to the rules of the 17, have no say when it comes to decision-making? This makes no sense. That is why I understand the position of the Christian Democratic Union in Germany when their paper says: merge the positions held by Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy and the problem will be solved.

We have an institutional crisis on our hands. You have made three remarks on the institutions, Mr Van Rompuy. The first is this: cooperation is needed between the Commission and the Head of the Euro Group – in other words you, yourself – in order to intervene in the budgetary sovereignty of the national parliaments in cases of excessive deficits, as with Italy, for example. Your second remark regarding the institutions was that the 17 need to go further than the rest, but that you would do your best to prevent a two-tier system. Your third remark regarding the institutions related to Treaty change. All three ideas, two of which we have now heard from you in concrete terms, as well as the proposal to change the Treaty, contain or provide for enormous executive rights that put an end to national sovereignty rights. There is one institution, however, that receives no mention in your proposals: the European Parliament, the platform for European Democracy. I would say to you, not just on behalf of my own group, but, I believe, on behalf of most Members of this House, that whatever your executive intentions in Europe in relation to the Treaty, you need the European Parliament! Because this is an interim summit, you should take the President of the European Parliament seriously by including him in your deliberations. There can be no Treaty change without this Parliament.

(Applause)

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not looking for a fight with the institutions. We need the institutions to complement one another. The institutions in Europe need to work together. Parliament with the Council, the Council with the Commission and the Commission with Parliament. If this is the case, however, then I would ask you why is it that the term ‘European Parliament’ does not appear once in the conclusions of the European Council? We are ready to work with you. I hope you are ready to work with us. If this is not the case, you will have to learn that the European Parliament will make extensive use of its rights on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon.

(Sustained applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, let me, as always, be blunt. I am relieved this morning, because it might be a totally different debate here in Parliament without the decisions that were taken at 4 o’clock this morning. I am relieved for one simple reason: finally we are starting to put in place a global approach to stabilise the euro, and I am relieved because finally – and it has to be repeated – we are now abandoning our hesitant approach of the last 20 months. Let us also be very blunt about that: this crisis, and the reason for this mess, has been prolonged and worsened by the way this has been handled from the beginning, with contradictions, hesitations and half measures. We have done our job, with the pressure we have put on the Council and on the Commission to ensure that this way of handling this crisis finally comes to an end.

But we also have to be realistic about it. A few good days on the markets do not mean that we have already reached our goal and that the euro is still stable, and again stable, and again strengthened. Our goal is to strengthen and stabilise the euro in the mid term and the long term, not for one day or one week, and two things are crucial in achieving this in the coming days and weeks. The first is that the new firepower of the rescue fund has to be real firepower in the sense that the markets are convinced by it.

Let us be honest: one trillion – that is what it is in English, not one thousand million – is an impressive figure. It is big, but there are doubts about whether that firepower can be achieved in the long term if you offer, for example, a guarantee of 20% when, on the other hand, we agree on a haircut for Greece of 50%. How credible, then, is this firepower? Perhaps Mr Van Rompuy can confirm that no figure was mentioned in the Council conclusions; it is stated in the Council conclusions that there is a guarantee or a possibility that it is one of the options, but I have not seen a figure, a concrete percentage showing what this guarantee might be. It is this guarantee – the percentage of this guarantee – that makes the system credible and sustainable and ensures that the firepower is sizeable and can be used on the markets.

My second, equally important point is that we have to use the coming weeks and months to lay the foundations for a real economic and fiscal union for the eurozone. Let us be very clear: it is not over. Markets are waiting to see that we, by the end of the year, are establishing a real economic and fiscal union besides and in parallel with monetary union. That means in fact that we have to do two things. First of all I urge you, Mr Barroso, to come forward as fast as possible – before the end of the year, as you have announced – and put on the table the Green Paper on euro securities, the so-called stability bonds. Because in the end it is only a Eurobond market that can end the tensions within the market and avoid a repetition of last year’s mess.

The second and most important thing is that we now need to establish real economic government in the eurozone. Again, I have nothing against the idea, which we can also see in the conclusions of the Council, that you will share two Euro Summits every year, maybe more if required and necessary; this already happens. But that is not the economic governance we need. An economic government is more than two meetings a year. I was Prime Minister for nine years and we met twice a week and, if necessary, twice a day, but not twice a year.

So we need something else, which I think is in the conclusions. What we need is to use Article 28 of the conclusions of yesterday. I am very pleased that Olli Rehn has been appointed Vice-President of the Commission in charge of the euro. What we need now, Mr Barroso, is for him to be able to create an inner cabinet in the Commission where he chairs all the portfolios of the Commissioners related to the euro, so that you make it sustainable and markets see that there is a government, an inner cabinet, in the Commission dealing with these problems.

Secondly, I will repeat my proposal. We also have to ensure that this Commissioner Vice-President chairs the meetings of the Ministers of Finance of the euro, the Euro Group. Let us make the system consistent and not have two personalities again who chair and are responsible for that. My request is that you come forward now, Mr Barroso, with a legislative proposal, as fast as possible, in order to provide a solution to that problem.

Finally, there is huge criticism, let us be honest. I had the opportunity this morning to hear yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons in London, Britain, where Mr Cameron said ‘hah, they have problems there but it is OK, we are not there, there is no problem for us’, and he was criticising Ed Miliband yesterday in the House of Commons. But let us be honest: he is pleased to be outside but he wants to be inside to influence all these decisions, and he is criticising it. I think there is a good way for Great Britain to be involved in euro politics, and that is to enter the eurozone and be part of the system.

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, there are a few good things in the package that has been adopted, but unfortunately there are many more bad things in it. One good thing is the call for a balanced budget – the so-called balanced budget rule. Everybody wants to have a balanced budget. That is true. I just wonder how it will be received by those political forces and those politicians who have been used, for a very long time, to bribing their voters with public overspending. Will they stick with that rule or not? That is another question.

The main bad thing in the whole package is that it is actually only a buying of time, a temporary solution. What has happened? The vast amount of both private and public funds will be poured into the debt bailouts. Other debts will simply be written off and a bond union will be created.

This means that we are at the very beginning of a massive fiscal transfer, and one never before seen in European history. This is an unprecedented case and I am afraid that it will create an enormous burden for the EU economy and that it will result in very high long-term costs. I am afraid that loss of economic growth and loss of international competitiveness is unfortunately what is to be expected. Even worse, this might have a side effect on other, very viable, strategies, such as completion of a single market. I was very pleased to see Sunday’s Council giving a renewed commitment to completion of a single market. We must not just drop the single market while we attempt to save the single currency.

I represent a group with the most non-eurozone members and as a eurozone outsider, as an observer, my feeling is that the eurozone at the moment does not serve all its 17 members, but just a few. I have the feeling that the only answer to the current problems will be the reduction of the eurozone, and sooner or later this will have to be done, like it or not. That is the only reasonable way out of this mess.

On non-eurozone countries, I have one more remark to make – last but not least. We should allow non-eurozone members, such as my country, to decide again if they even wish to enter. We signed up in our accession treaty to a monetary union, and not to a transfer union or a bond union. That is the main reason why, for instance, the Czech Prime Minister wishes to call a referendum on this matter, which has my full support.

To sum up, where are we now? We have found a very costly and only temporary solution. Another Treaty change is even being considered. Let me say that this is completely out of touch and completely unrealistic. This will never be passed. Have you already forgotten the lessons of the Lisbon Treaty? I do not think so. I am sorry to say this, but there is no real reason for optimism. Merely rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic is not enough.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I share the same feeling of relief described by Mr Verhofstadt, although I must say that it almost comes as a relief when anything at all is agreed on following the now familiar crisis summits. Before you offer us your explanation of how the Euro Area Summit will assume responsibility for economic governance in the future, I must point out that I still see no evidence of an analysis of the failure on your side. Nor have I heard that the Heads of State or Government once told Greece that the programmes they had agreed over the course of the last year had actually driven Greece more deeply into crisis.

My sceptical analysis does not just apply to the developments we have seen in recent months. At this point I would like once again to explain my scepticism with regard to what was agreed yesterday and finalised last night. If things do not work out as well as outlined at present, then people should not simply shrug and say that no one could have foreseen such a turn of events. It is my belief – in relation to capitalisation – that you have not yet abandoned this pattern of deciding too little, that the haircut is not sufficient and that the processes are too slow.

In relation to Greece, we heard last week from the Troika that the haircut should be around 60%. You really need to explain why a figure of 50% has been chosen. You also need to explain why you believe that creditors, who are finally to be asked to shoulder a greater share of the burden, will implement this 50% figure, given the fact that they have not yet implemented the 21% haircut voluntarily agreed in July. I am still at a loss to know from where this hope comes.

My second point concerns the recapitalisation that is needed for the banks. I believe we can all quickly agree that this is a process that does not deserve particular confidence. At the very least, the process will be too slow. I daresay that the Dexia problem will not prove to be a unique case and that other scenarios similar to Dexia’s will be encountered.

With regard to the EFSF lever that provided the focus for debate prior to the summit in Germany, I am astonished at the confidence of the Council of the Euro Group in expecting the markets to use the levers they agreed in a constructive way. I believe that it is a very slim hope that the markets will suddenly start to operate in a constructive manner. I also fail to understand why we now intend limiting the capital for the EFSF to 1 billion, even though we were actually certain that 2 billion would be needed.

What you have completely ignored so far is the fact that the economic figures of the European Union are negative overall. Even in Germany, economic growth is starting to slip. The prospects for a stimulus programme for sustained development in the European economy, particularly in the countries that are in deficit, have been very limited to date. This is once again demonstrated by the fact that you continue to emphasise the need for austerity, failing to mention the revenue side at all. Mr Schulz has said quite enough already about the major problem of tax evasion. This is something where you have still failed to take a genuinely consistent line.

(Applause)

I began with a vehement criticism of the ability of the summit led by you, Mr Van Rompuy, to function properly. It is also evident that, despite the glimpse into the profound abyss afforded us by the Troika and the markets in recent weeks, you are still failing to act with consistency, that more and more crisis meetings are required, and that not enough is being decided in the end. It is for this reason that I share the opinion of those who say that, in the light of the Euro Area Summit chaired by you, it is quite inconceivable that economic governance can work with meetings to be held at six-monthly intervals. In view of what we have experienced in the last year, I believe that this is almost like a threat. I believe that we are making more progress in the debate regarding the strengthening of powers, including those of Mr Rehn, something the Council has resisted so far. We cannot continue to play politics in this crisis with this non-transparent Euro Area Summit, undemocratic procedures, and a strategy of telling our citizens half-truths.

(Applause)

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we were promised a bold move that would constitute a comprehensive solution to overcome the debt crisis. But what has the summit actually achieved?

The Greek debt crisis has entered a new phase with the agreed haircut of 50%. This is something to be welcomed because it means that the country is freed from a significant part of its national debt. This is a positive outward signal and eases the situation for the Greek Government. This step does not mean a reversal in the downward spiral of the Greek economy, however. According to expert assessments, the country’s financial needs up to 2020 have already risen to EUR 250 billion. Likewise, this has not reduced the disastrous consequences for the people of Greece.

In particular, the Greek banks need to survive the consequences of the haircut. They need extensive supports if they are to be rescued from ruin, otherwise it is not just the bond holders who will bear the cost, but also countless Greek citizens with their savings, pensions and other insurance cover. Much as I welcome the fact that the main culprits for the debt crisis are being called to greater account, this may be a risky move, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and for many ordinary savers.

What assets will be levied by the banks? I believe that a socially just solution can more probably be achieved with nationalised banks, although a rescue or capitalisation of the banks should be made conditional on direct consultation or even more effective controls by the state. Banks in these countries should be recapitalised to the same extent as banks in France, Germany and other countries.

The question remains whether the haircut will bring the much-vaunted lasting solution for Greece and the other endangered countries. Will this restore the trust of citizens and investors in the international financial markets? This is a question that I can only answer by quoting a famous phrase from Faust: ‘While I have heard the message– about the summit – I am not sure I believe it.’ When I think of the general strike and the further mobilisation of the public, I know that the Greek people have lost confidence massively. What is more, democracy itself is in huge danger, after all a government can only act against the opinion of the majority of the population for so long. This is a question that must also be answered by the IMF, ECB and the Council, in other words the so-called Troika, which has placed Greece under this austerity regime.

My doubts also relate to the financial trick of leveraging the rescue fund. Although this will mobilise more financial resources, the question is at what cost? Countries are playing according to the rules of the financial markets and believe themselves to be in a strong position. If you will permit me, this is an illusion. The state debt crisis may not just spread very rapidly, but may also require massively increased commitments. This increases the risk to the taxpayer several fold.

We must act decisively in bringing the power of the international financial community to heel, otherwise the crisis will spread. Everything is to play for.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) Mr President, this crisis is shaking the very foundations of the eurozone and undermining stability in Europe. A credible and effective response is thus urgently needed. As far as we know at this stage, the main points of the agreement reached have been received fairly positively. Important details still have to be added, however.

First of all, market confidence must be restored on the basis of the quality of governance in those Member States that are deeply in debt. Above all, investors must now decide whether this package is convincing. Secondly, the size of the Emergency Fund must be addressed. It is not as large as economists and central bankers would like. The question is, therefore, whether this aspect is future-proof. The third issue is the Greek privatisation programme. It is unclear on what the optimism concerning the extra EUR 15 billion in privatisations is based. The results obtained so far do not give sufficient grounds for such optimism.

Fourthly, the level of impact must be examined. One aspect that springs to mind is the value of write-offs by the private sector in respect of Greek state bonds, a crucial factor which the banking sector and the authorities must work on so that this is clear by the end of 2011. There is also great uncertainty concerning the recapitalisation of the banks. The European Banking Authority still has to work a few things out on the basis of new figures for cash requirements from September, and recent estimates in this area have varied widely.

A fifth crucial detail relates to economic governance. The question is whether there are adequate guarantees to prevent future problems. In the conclusions of the Council, I see no agreement on stronger enforcement of budgetary rules and a fundamental tackling of imbalances at the level of balances of trade and payments. Were rules aimed at resolving these issues more effectively also on the agenda? It goes without saying that I welcome the rapid introduction of the legislative package strengthening the Stability and Growth Pact and the strengthening of the powers of the Budget Commissioner, but the wording of this final aspect in paragraph 28 of the Council’s conclusions leaves me anything but confident.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Van Rompuy, ladies and gentlemen, this crisis is teaching us many things, but there is one lesson that I think is especially important, and it is this: the Treaties will need to be amended in the future to overhaul the decision-making process and how agreements are adopted within the European institutions.

The diabolical system currently in place is slow, frustrating and, what is more, full of vagaries. These flaws lead us to inaction and, in some cases, paralysis, and economic ruin is never far behind paralysis.

I will say it time and time again from my humble seat: a federal state can work either well or poorly, but a confederation never works.

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, President-in Office of the Council, this is no doubt a good interim result, however the institutional crisis is far from over. We must be clear on this. That is why I have five things to say in the short time allotted me:

Firstly, democracy needs time, Mr Van Rompuy. You are quite right about this. Democracy also needs clear decision-making structures and parliamentary control – and these are precisely what we lack.

Secondly, the markets react quickly – more quickly than politics and democracy. As long as the markets are driven by anxiety and greed, rather than by clear rules, we will continue to simply push the problem further down the road, rather than solving it. That is why we need these clear rules, both within the European Union and worldwide. We need responsibility in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries. This includes tax evasion, as well as the abolition of betting on every conceivable development, and the curbing of the excesses of the financial market.

Thirdly, the states themselves are responsible for the debt crisis. This excessive debt was not sanctioned in the last 10 years either by the markets or by the EU Commission, or the Stability and Growth Pact. We need institutional change here. Whatever those who are tempted to print more money may think, inflation is not the solution. This would hit the poorest and weakest and would not just result in expropriation. Inflation is an unsocial solution.

Fourthly, cohesion policy has failed. The aim of the Structural and Cohesion Funds was to improve competitiveness. They actually had the opposite effect. We cannot go on like this.

Fifthly: we need to make major changes to the substance of the Treaties. I do not want to discuss the individual points. Mr Schulz has already mentioned one. It is not enough to give new powers to Mr Rehn, someone I respect very much. The Christian Democratic Union paper quoted calls for a right of initiative for Parliament and the Council because the Commission dragged its heels, making its decisions and presenting its proposals on the basis of external influences. If we achieve broad support there, then we will start to make progress.

(The President interrupted the speaker)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – (FI) Mr Langen, you spoke quite rightly about the crisis of structures and they have been mentioned here a good deal. We also often speak about the crisis of values. I think that this is also about a crisis of values, because greed has acquired far too much power. There are greedy investors, unscrupulous speculators, and unfair credit rating companies. It is thus a matter of values. Do you also think that this is a crisis of values?

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, this was not a question, but rather a statement. We Christian Democrats practise these values. This is the fundamental basis for our political activities.

  Stephen Hughes (S&D). - Mr President, in some respect these conclusions are quite surreal. They start with the Council congratulating itself for having taken unprecedented steps to combat the effects of the financial crisis. The fact is that it has been forced to take unprecedented steps, but always too little and too late – forced to do so by nervous markets because of its uncertainty and hesitation. The conclusions go on to talk about our ‘ambitious agenda for growth’, but the truth is we simply do not have an agenda for growth and we certainly do not have one for job creation. We should have, with 23 million people unemployed, but incredibly these conclusions do not even mention unemployment.

It is quite outrageous that the conclusions talk about improving the growth and employment outlook. Just a few weeks ago the Council, with the support of the Liberals and EPP here, was happy to agree an economic governance package without accepting any differentiated treatment of public investment spending. Now it is calling on Member States to focus public spending on growth areas, but there is no real public money available to spend on growth areas in the next few years, what with the collapse in growth rates and the demand that deficits be brought under 3% by 2013.

To make matters worse, the conclusions later say that building on the ‘six pack’, the European Semester and the Europe Plus Pact, euro area Member States will be required to adopt the fiscal rules translating the Stability and Growth Pact deficit and debt rules into national legislation, preferably at a constitutional level by the end of 2012. This is fundamentally anti-democratic; it is a barefaced attempt by the currently dominant Right to permanently embed their austerity agenda into national constitutions; it is an attempted rightwing coup which tries to freeze out alternative ideological approaches to dealing with the crisis.

The budget balance concept is a political concept, and if it becomes embedded in national constitutions it will permanently enshrine a major chunk of rightwing ideology, moving it away from normal democratic processes. It would shift the essence of the Stability and Growth Pact away from political debate and profoundly affect the way that progressive politics can be conceived and pursued at both national and European level.

The other striking thing about these conclusions, mentioned by Martin Schulz, is the total lack of regard for this Parliament. This directly-elected institution should be directly involved in economic governance.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, Mr Hughes, your speech was interesting, but I would like to put one question to you: do you not think that the big winner from this summit was financial capital, which can still speculate at will, and hide funds away in tax havens and offshore, whilst using the money that the workers and the people will have to come up with for so-called austerity policies, as in Portugal, Greece and elsewhere, to be transferred to banks for their recapitalisation?

  Stephen Hughes (S&D). - Mr President, I agree. I think that, as Mr Daul said earlier – I thought he put it extremely well – President Barroso has outlined a set of proposals here today, summarising what was agreed at Council last night, that will benefit the bankers. As Mr Daul said, let us try to begin to address the problems of the poorest in society. That is what we need to do.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Presidents, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for being here today after some difficult days and a short night.

Several positive points have emerged from what you have just announced. We are pleased that things have not ended in tragedy. I would like to ask you a question. We are all very keen for what you are proposing to succeed, and I would not wish to ask you to associate this Parliament with it for institutional reasons. I would like to draw your attention to the contribution that we might make to ensure the success of your own ambitions. Mr Van Rompuy, you said just now, quite rightly, that we are learning that economies are interdependent. Could you not also learn that democracies are interdependent? The peer pressure that we have to bring to bear on each other will not be tolerable if it is perceived by our peoples as coming as a result of a diktat from the Central Bank, the Commission or even the Council. Just look at what happened between the French and the Italians this week. Would it not be possible to make greater use of this Parliament as a place where some can exert pressure on others within a democratic forum, by letting, in the case of each country, the majority and the opposition enjoy the opportunity – and this is not the case in the Council – to give their opinion?

I have the greatest of respect for the Bundestag. I have the greatest of respect for German democracy, but we cannot interrupt summits just to let representatives of the German people voice their opinions.

Let us draw on the German experience and the quality of German democracy and translate it to a European level. We all need to voice our opinions on matters such as these.

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR). - Mr President, it is good that some progress was made during the European Council Summit last night and it seems that the financial markets are cautiously celebrating. I am pleased that President Van Rompuy and President Barroso are here this morning. Mr Verhofstadt, your gratuitous remarks about my Prime Minister are totally unacceptable.

The eurozone countries must, of course, find a solution to the problems inherent in fiscal union. The weak must be strengthened, but in the short term this is a big ask of the strong, especially Germany. We need more details of the changes to the EFSF, as decisions taken behind closed doors seem confusing in the cold light of day. Those Member States who are not in the eurozone should be committed to the success of the plans, but we must make sure that overall competitiveness and growth and employment in all 27 states are not adversely affected as a result, while cutting regulation and red tape must remain a priority.

  Pascal Canfin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, in your speech you talked about peer pressure and market forces, but I think you forgot to mention people pressure because, when I look at the plan that you adopted yesterday evening, I see that you are applying the same approach to Italy as you are to Greece. This is an unpleasant approach and it does not work. If you want to increase the problems we already have in Greece by applying the same approach to Italy tomorrow, please feel free to do so, but I am sure that people pressure will change the landscape.

You have not mentioned the word ‘tax’ at all. Several MEPs have mentioned in this House that tax evasion was a major problem in Europe. Our region has the greatest fiscal competition in the world. We are a single market but we do not have fiscal harmonisation. We simply must resolve this paradoxical situation.

You know the figures. In Italy, according to the government, EUR 120 billion escape the Italian tax system, EUR 200 billion in Greece, EUR 100 billion in France and EUR 150 billion in Germany. There is no point in calling on casual workers, the unemployed, junior civil servants and the retired to make a contribution if you do not make it a priority to tackle tax evasion. You have not said a single word about this. This is an outrageous and unjust shortcoming in the outcome of yesterday’s summit.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Mr President, Mr Rutte and other Heads of State or Government are calling this agreement historic. I say: what nonsense! Once again they have been taken hostage by the financial markets, once again they are going to help the banks, and once against the taxpayer will have to foot the bill.

How long will this madness go on? Multinationals make huge profits: BP recorded a net profit of EUR 3.5 billion in the third quarter. Will these profits be taxed more heavily, or will we make do with the mantra of cutting benefits and public services and increasing VAT? These are precisely the things that affect the weak and SMEs and that lead to a vicious circle of unemployment, a shrinking economy and yet more public deficits. This vicious circle must be broken. Tackle the speculators; we must never again fall into the trap of deregulation. Without deregulation, the banks’ reserves would long since have been healthy.

There is still much uncertainty ahead. Will the bonuses of managers and other bankers now be banned if banks receive aid? Why do we not just ban bonuses anyway? What has been decided on the separation of banks’ risky and other activities? Is this a historic agreement? No, it is just more of the same.

  John Bufton (EFD). - Mr President, it would appear the markets have been calm this morning – but for how long, Mr Van Rompuy? One of the agreed measures is for banks to raise more capital. How is this going to happen? Will they simply stop loaning? How will that affect growth in the economy? Will we possibly see control of the region’s banking system handed over to the Middle East and Asia? Europe is not giving new money to the banks, and instead they are expected to find EUR 100 billion themselves and also write down EUR 20 billion of Greek debt. This can only come from restricted lending or from outside investors taking advantage of the buyers’ market and will probably end up buying up most of the European banking system.

Rather than admit the project is a failure and seek to carefully dismantle it, instead you are willing to sell it. Perhaps you are going to take raffle tickets to the next G20 meeting, with the top prize being Greece. This whole period has raised some serious questions about you, Mr Van Rompuy. As the leaders of Europe have been bickering and squabbling and falling deeper into the mire, the newly-elected President should surely have jumped to attention and started to flex his muscles. But you have been about as visible as credit in the European governments’ treasury. The euro has done more for European disunity than anything else, turning country against country, leader against leader, taxpayer against government.

Outside the United Nations you stated that the EU was the fatherland of democracy. So who is the mother? Perhaps the Soviet Union. Mr Van Rompuy, I want to ask you if you would kindly give me an answer when you stand up in a few minutes. I want you clearly to tell me what you believe the cost for this recent rescue bailout will be to the United Kingdom.

  Barry Madlener (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the Dutch have long been the largest net contributors to the EU and are now the second largest contributors to paying off the Greek debt. Pensions in the Netherlands are falling, as is, once again, the purchasing power of the Dutch. The Dutch are fed up with it.

The euro is a failed project, and those responsible for it are the people sitting in this room. It is the old elite parties – the Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and the Liberals – who now have egg on their face. Messrs Verhofstadt, Schulz, Daul and your clapping machines in this room – you are all jointly responsible for the stupid choices you made concerning this impossible eurozone. You did it without asking the Europeans or the Dutch if they wanted it. No referendum was ever held. Yet ordinary citizens now have to foot the bill. The Dutch have already paid over EUR 10 000 per family towards this debt crisis, and that amount is going to rise dramatically if Mr Barroso has anything to do with it. The Greek and Italian debt mountain is being shared out between ‘Jan Modaal’, ‘Joe Average’ and ‘Otto Normalverbraucher’. Once again this is taking place without a referendum, and that is a scandal.

Yesterday it was decided that the banks must be recapitalised and, at the same time, write off Greek bonds. That is impossible, at least for the Greek banks. In everyday language, this means that the banks, which speculated with savings and paid top salaries, will now receive Dutch taxpayers’ money. Yes – Dutch and German taxpayers will have to pay to keep the Greek banks on their feet. That is the only outcome of this summit.

Most of the Members in this Chamber think this is all well and good. Yes, the MEPs and leaders sitting in this Chamber have no problem paying, but it is not so easy for ‘Jan Modaal’, ‘Joe Average’ and ‘Otto Normalverbraucher’. They are not getting a 5% pay rise, like the one Parliament awarded itself yesterday. To increase its own budget by 5% in times such as these, as Parliament did yesterday, is quite simply shameless. I would also ask all my fellow Members, do you have no shame, or do you hope that your electors will not see what you have done and that you will be able to get away with it like a thief in the night? Increasing your own budget while at the same time saddling taxpayers with other people’s debts is typical of this sham parliament and of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). At the same time, however, I was also proud to be able to defend the interests of hard-working Dutch taxpayers yesterday.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, many of us have cried out in recent times that ‘Europe is in danger’. Fortunately, thanks to the efforts made yesterday by governments and EU institutions, we have fended off the risk that Europe may become the main threat to global stability. I agree with you, Mr Barroso, that the current crisis also necessitates changes in our institutional structure, which will allow us to show the world that we are responsible and united.

Today please allow me, however, in the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon, to use the platform of this Parliament to launch an appeal to the ruling class of my country: not only to politicians, but also to all those who have significant responsibilities in the economy or in civil society. The commitments made by Italy yesterday deserve an approach that goes beyond the factors that divide us and look at the needs of our people and at the contribution that we are being asked to so that Europe may be competitive and safeguard our well-being.

The role of the Italian Parliament in the coming days will be crucial, not only for Italy but for Europe, confirming the deep interdependence that binds together the economies of our countries. I hope, I wish, I desire, I ask with all my heart that this awareness can bring about an echo in my own country of the results achieved yesterday in Brussels.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Mauro, I have here Silvio Berlusconi’s letter to the Council and to the Commission, in which he says in Italian: ‘Dear Herman, dear José Manuel, blah blah blah blah blah, yours affectionately.’ I would just like to say that this letter is a list of promises that only reflect the views of those who believe in them. These are promises made by a political clown on the wane. Given that this letter was accepted by those taking part yesterday, I would like to ask you how you can explain this, if it was not an act of leniency towards a friend of the political majority in Europe. Had Mr Papandreou had the nerve to write such a letter, he would have been laughed at!

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since I was addressing all Italians, I consider that group to include those with an Italian surname as well. Hence the appeal applies to Mr Tarabella, too.

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all trust that Mr Daul is right when he says that we are hopefully beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel in this crisis. The litmus test for this question, however, is not to be found in today’s newspaper headlines, but rather in the economic developments of the coming weeks and months.

Paragraph 3 of the resolution states: ‘The European Union must improve its prospects for growth and employment.’ This is absolutely correct. A question last night’s document did not answer, however, is the issue of what is to be done in order to improve the prospects for growth and employment. Much later, in paragraph 25, there is an indication of the intent to work out an appropriate strategy. I hope that this will happen. One thing is clear, however, President of the Commission and President-in-Office of the Council: a strategy of cuts without investment will not see us through this crisis. We are already in a state of stagnation and the threat of recession is not far away.

Mr Barroso, this will come at a high cost for the people you have referred to, who are at the receiving end of this series of bad decisions, and who will find themselves with no jobs and no income.

That is the reason for my question today: When, Mr Van Rompuy, do you intend coming to this House with these proposals so that they can be approved by Parliament? After all, you said yourself that it is a matter for this House to discuss economic policy with you. We must assume responsibility here in a situation where you are obviously ready to curtail the responsibilities of the national parliaments. That is our present task. We would like to hear your answer.

  Sharon Bowles (ALDE). - Mr President, as ever we await details. Concerning the EFSF, the credit enhancement option has similarity to mortgage and US department guarantees, whilst the SPV option has similarities with known structured products. However, neither has been tested on the markets on this scale and so there will be challenges to meet in deployment. The SPV funds need to be found at a reasonable cost, and then we will have a window to get the growth package working and sort out the debt overhang, or we will find ourselves facing similar problems again.

Bank recapitalisation and – still missing – crisis resolution are overdue, in part because of political weakness and previous denials of the situation. In consequence, taxpayers will now bear more of the cost.

Finally, overall, we still have to find a solution for the fact that growth was built on debt for too long. The solution is not more of the same.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). - Mr President, Charles Dickens once described credit as a system by which people who have no money borrow from other people who have no money but pretend they have. The Summit has transformed the European Union into a debt union where debt is pumped around so we can all pretend we have money but in reality we do not. We only bought time – and why?

The root of the problem is still there. Greece cannot recover in the eurozone. Its debt has been cut but its economy remains sinking because the euro is too expensive for them. Greece will default and have to leave the eurozone to devalue, but it stays in and as a consequence the rest of the package will be undermined. The rescue fund is inflated to insure bonds from weaker Member States – but who wants to buy a bond which is insured up to 20% while you risk a haircut of 50%? If I were the investor I would stay away.

In May last year we stood here; the newly created rescue fund was shock and awe. It was not to be, and now we have constructed a Ponzi scheme, a debt bubble doomed to burst. Your summits, Mr Van Rompuy, have become a Shakespearian drama of which the next episode is just a matter of time. I wish you personally – and I see you are yawning a lot – a good recovery from a sleepless night in Brussels, but many may fall.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, President of the European Commission, President of the European Council, I would like to welcome you as you are a great European democrat and European democracy finds its expression in this House. This House is your home.

I would like to make two or three comments. Firstly, we are not in a crisis of the euro. The euro is not the problem. The euro is the solution. We are not in a crisis of Europe. Europe is not the problem, it is the solution. The problem is the indebtedness of Member States. You have protected the financial stability of the Member States at the level of the euro area and the European Union, and I thank you for that.

We should ask ourselves the following question: what would have happened had we not had the euro? The franc, the escudo, the peseta would all have been devalued by between 10 and 35%, the Greek drachma by 40%, and the Deutschmark would have been re-valued by 20%. Let us reflect on this question and recognise that we are extremely lucky to have the euro, which is a solid currency, with vast foreign exchange reserves, which are respected on a global scale. The truth is that we are making progress towards greater European Union and, as the European Council of 23 October stated, towards a growth strategy with the single market. We shall enter the G20 summit with our heads held high. As Jean-Pierre Jouyet has written, too bad indeed if the financial markets end up imposing political Europe in an example of major historical irony. It is very good news that we are making progress towards this political Europe that we all want.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Presidents, ladies and gentlemen, this morning my feelings are both of relief and concern.

I feel relieved because at least last night’s agreement exists as we could not risk another failure. The restructuring of the Greek debt takes the European contribution to more than EUR 200 billion, adding together private debts, the euro area stability fund and the public aid plan. The first stage of recapitalising the banks loosens the current stranglehold by increasing own funds. I particularly welcome the increase of the European Financial Stability Facility rescue fund to EUR 1 000 billion, at last, in my view, as the socialists have always believed that this fund was not sufficiently resourced.

However, as a European, let me share with you the reasons for my concern, which are serious ones. I fear that all we did last night was to increase our capacity to carry out a patch-up job, and that we neglected the foundations of our common edifice.

On reading this agreement, I can see grounds for two major reservations: firstly, its ‘short term’ nature. The measures adopted this morning relate exclusively to finance and in no way provide a long-term solution to the need for economic integration. This morning, the Council responded to the European banking, debt and euro crisis: that was a vital step. However, the lack of prospects for growth and the silence on economic convergence and employment allow some people to continue to speculate about how fragile we are.

At a time when we should be carrying out structural reforms to invest in and kick-start growth, we are recommended to opt for the ‘Euro Plus Pact’. We do not accept that. Let us not replace excessive dependency on the market by dependency on competitor nations which do not comply either with social or environmental standards.

The second reservation: budgetary authoritarianism, which adds enforcement to austerity. In point of fact, we face two crucial tasks today: to clean up our public finances and to kick-start growth. The balance between these two must be a political choice. It flows from a decision that we make for the people of Europe that we represent. The Court of Justice should not be a substitute for political will and our duty to show solidarity. We must not revise the treaty under pressure from speculators. The choice of further integration is our political duty, and that of this Parliament.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are now experiencing is something we have warned about for many years in soapbox speeches. We are leaving the coming generations an impossible debt burden. This is irresponsible. All the political parties have said so for many years. We can see from the example of Greece that the problem is no longer waiting for the next generation – it is now confronting this generation and we can see what this means.

Tightening one’s belt is painful, however we need to move towards a stability union. There have been some good developments that are going well and where things are working. Ireland is heading in the right direction. We have introduced a budgetary control watchdog, the European Semester. We have agreed a stability pact with teeth – something also to be welcomed. Last night marked an important step along the way to stability union. We agreed that the banks need to do business on a more solid basis. They are to be forced to fulfil their responsibilities and will be recapitalised, however they must have a solid 9% of equity capital. Greece is to have the haircut. It was clear that this would have to happen. We will also have permanent monitoring of the reforms in Greece.

Italy has announced pension reforms. We must be clear about the fact that we are still on the path to stability union. All of these things must be implemented in order for us to move forward.

I would like to close by congratulating Mr Rehn, the new Vice-President. I am certain that he will play a key role in taking us along the path to this stability union.

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, economic governance in the euro area was, yet again, the main item on the agenda of the European Union summit in Brussels. Yet again, the possibility is being considered of amending the Treaty of Lisbon which, although conceived with a view to improving the functioning of the European Union, is still causing confusion among the EU institutions and in public opinion. A division within the European Union is now a reality. What we have is not necessarily, as has been claimed until now, a two-speed Europe but – as was recently expressed at the European Parliament – a three-speed Europe: the French-German directorate, other countries belonging to the euro area and countries that have not joined this zone.

However, at the summit last night the decision was made to write off EUR 100 billion of Greek debt and, additionally, to carry out bank recapitalisation. This short-term mechanism may prove insufficient, for example in the face of the threat that the crisis may extend to Italy, and for this reason, too, it is worth considering the possibility of a phased return of some countries to their national currencies.

  José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, the fact that there was fumata bianca this morning is good news, albeit good news which I would like to clarify.

The restructuring of the Greek debt is also good news, but we would do well to admit that we were wrong, because, under the initial conditions, Greece would never have been able to pay. If we had acted sooner, the Greek people would have suffered less and the cost of the bailout would have been lower.

Recapitalisation of the banks: I need to look at it in detail, but I do not really understand why they have changed the criteria for evaluating sovereign debt, but have made no alteration to the evaluation of toxic assets, and I do not understand why they have set a ‘one size fits all’ rule for the limit on capital, thus establishing similar recapitalisation limits for financial institutions which, in fact, are not similar.

The Spanish Government will have to explain the transfers that it has carried out, but that will be done at home. On the other hand, the Commission does have to explain to us here why we are facing a banking crisis without it having submitted the proposal for a directive on crisis resolution mechanisms, as it promised to do when we spoke about financial supervision. A new storm, and still the lifeboats are not ready.

Lastly, it is good news that they are boosting the firepower of the bailout fund. It is just a shame that we have to look externally because we are incapable of sorting out our own problems internally, and we will only do so if we have a comprehensive plan that simultaneously addresses macro-economic discipline, debt sustainability and, above all, growth.

It is time that the Commission came up with a universal plan and for us to get moving. If we have to amend the Treaties, well, let us do it, but we need to do it in stages, starting now.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most recurrent words in these conclusions are ‘urge’ and ‘commitment’, including Mr Berlusconi’s commitment to tackle the North-South divide in four months. It is clear, then, that exhortations and commitments do not add up to any sort of common economic policy; nor do institutions that do not exist, such as Eurosummit, for example.

The proposed regulations based on Article 136, announced by Mr Barroso, show that the institutions that do actually exist can, instead of exhortations, make laws. We say: ‘make them; make these laws now’. We would add, furthermore, that we shall not allow any treaty reforms unless all the possibilities of the existing treaty have been exhausted. We shall not accept a limited mandate that has not been devised in part by Parliament and does not include codecision on economic policy and shared responsibility for Eurobonds, because without democracy, growth and solidarity, a stable European Union remains merely a chimera.

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, I would like to thank President Van Rompuy and President Barroso for being here after having had only a few hours’ sleep. You both deserve credit for the result achieved last night. Through your presence here, you are highlighting the institutional importance of this European Parliament as a democratically elected body.

I would also like to congratulate Commissioner Rehn for his appointment as ‘Mister euro’. You must now be given the means to act where our more intensive, but also more urgent, cooperation on budgetary and socio-economic affairs is concerned. We have laid the foundations for this with the six pack, but we must go further with the newly announced legislative proposals to intensify budgetary discipline in the eurozone and also with socio-economic cooperation. You can continue to rely on us as your allies.

On Tuesday, I told this House that we must protect the euro with a bazooka. It is a very complex bazooka, but if we all place it on our shoulders to make it work, then it will work. Commission, Heads of State or Government, the ECB and this Parliament – let us not exhaust ourselves with criticism before the watching eyes of the world, but let us instead show the world that we are united and stand together in making it work, because then we will be able to get through this crisis.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the outcome of tonight’s summit is very concerning. Among the measures that are being planned, I detect two constant themes: first, stability without growth; second, the marginalisation of Parliament.

Stability without growth is the goal proposed by the Italian Government’s document as well. We are faced with difficult debt and spending cuts, to the detriment of the most vulnerable and in the absence of policies for development and new wealth creation. Countries and banks are being assisted, but without actions to protect citizens affected by the crisis, even that becomes objectively unsustainable and unable to create consensus.

I should like it to be known that for many of us, any revision of the treaty is unthinkable unless we see a change in these approaches: Parliament, as an institution, and its Members must not be seen as merely bit-part players.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE) . – (RO) Mr President, I wish to express my particular appreciation for the political leaders who have taken tough but necessary decisions. I also wish to thank President Rompuy, President Barroso, Commissioner Olli Rehn and, let us not forget, the President of the European Central Bank, Mr Trichet, who has also made an important contribution to solving the problems caused by the crisis.

There was much impatience concerning these decisions because it has not been easy for creditors to accept that they have as much responsibility for indebted countries. Likewise, it has not been easy for creditors to accept that they should lose some of the money borrowed and bear that loss.

I hope that the technical and legal details necessary to implement these decisions will be finalised as quickly as possible.

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, without doubt we obtained a good result yesterday which, for the first time, paves the way for us to turn a page and get out of the crisis. Provided, of course, that everything that was agreed yesterday on the three major points is applied consistently, cohesively, quickly and with solidarity at all levels by everyone involved.

There are two main conditions: the first is that we need to give European citizens hope and prospects, especially those who are being severely tested and who are having to cope with reversals in their daily lives. The only way to do that is if we make a bold turn towards growth.

The second condition for success is to reverse the method we are using. We need to leave behind the intergovernmental method that has exacerbated and deepened the crisis.

President of the Commission, President of the Council, we want you to help us make the European Council understand that the European Parliament is not a think tank you throw ideas at; it is a strong institution with a role and competences at all stages of the procedure.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, first of all, I would, of course, like to congratulate the presidents of the Council and the Commission for the efforts that they have made over these last few days. Although the President of the Commission says it has been a marathon, the fact is that it is unusual to run a marathon sprinting with this intensity, so I would like to congratulate them and thank them for their efforts. I would also like to thank Commissioner Rehn.

Having said that, I would like to say that, although the signs are very positive, I believe it is important to make it clear what the script, roadmap or plan is for economic growth, especially for the southernmost area of Europe, which is currently at risk of economic depression. On the other hand, I also think it best to make clear that more was expected. What route is going to be taken in terms of amending the Treaties; of Treaty change? What proposals or approaches are on the table?

In any event, I am bound to say here in Parliament, which is also a political arena, that I am sure that, over the year and a half or almost two years that this crisis has lasted, both the President of the Commission and the President of the Council, who are known to be pro-Europeans, have done everything they can to ensure it would be resolved sooner. Perhaps we, as Members of this House representing the Member States, should have been more critical of our governments for not having risen to the European spirit that is surely in the heart and soul of these two leaders who have come here today.

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, I have listened very carefully to the statements made by the President of the Council and the President of the Commission. I agree that the fight to achieve the targets is a marathon, not a sprint. The decisions adopted by the summit are, theoretically, a step towards protecting the euro. However, the viability of my country’s debt does not depend solely on the ‘haircut’; it also depends on rates of economic growth and on generating surpluses in the long term and there will be no sign of this if we keep removing every growth element from the austerity package applied.

The common European currency created prospects and was a catalyst in reducing the losses of capital caused by exchange rates. It is a symbol of our strength, provided that we all work towards achieving growth and creating new jobs. Of course, that will only happen if politics take precedence over the markets and the banks, whose smoke and mirror transactions caused the crisis.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let us imagine a sea and ships, big and small, floating on this sea and all fastened to each other. Some ships have holes in the bottom and water is flooding in. All around there are pirates attacking the ships. This picture portrays the European Union today, where budget deficits prevent many Member States from developing. Now, what do we see this morning, after the mist has cleared? Why, Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso have made a sortie with their warships and frightened away all the pirates. Ladies and gentlemen, the decisions made by the European Council have not frightened them away. It could be said that they have not permanently calmed the financial markets. It has bought us time – the time to put Member States’ budgets finally in order. The financial markets have no confidence in the Member States, since the latter fail to deal prudently with their taxpayers’ money. Let us put national budgets in order and use the time these guns have bought for us for now. Thank you.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, 16 of the 20 Portuguese stock exchange-listed companies are domiciled in the Netherlands for tax purposes, two in Luxembourg and one in the Cayman Islands, so as to avoid paying tax in Portugal: they do not even have to declare what they are earning in Angola, Brazil or China.

Without tax harmonisation and the combating of tax evasion in the EU, there can be neither economic governance in the euro area nor a common market, nor the means to finance growth and employment, so as to enable us to get out of the crisis.

The cancer of offshore banking that is crippling our governments’ political capacity is left untouched by the ‘Merkozy’ directorate of the neoliberal right, which is misgoverning Europe. If the Commission and the Council are now going to take the idea of a financial transactions tax to the G20, why do they not start dismantling offshore banking and tax rivalry within the EU itself?

Instead of this, the ‘Merkozy’ directorate is using Treaty change to make eyes at them and preparing to leverage the fund at Chinese expense. This puts the euro dangerously at the mercy of the whims of a self-serving dictatorship; of one of the most savage forms of capitalism, and one that violates workers’ rights most frequently. How can the public regain their trust in the banks and in our governments under the ‘Merkozy’ directorate?

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Presidents, what we need is a major step towards federalism. If we want to benefit from the advantages of the European Union in order to respond to the crisis, and there are many advantages to be had, we do not just need budgetary and fiscal integration but political integration too. We have seen the limitations of the method of coordination that you continue to advocate. What has been your response? It has been to bring together the ministers for economic affairs and finance of the euro area and the European Union a little more frequently and to give the Commission increased powers of control over national budgetary processes. You are nonetheless well aware of what ‘austere’ stuff the Commission is made. You have done all that by keeping national parliaments very largely out of the picture, and increasingly, the European Parliament as well.

Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, what you are suggesting looks more and more like the Chinese model, a model which I think that we do not share. I hope that this is not the price to be paid for the loan that, through Mr Sarkozy and through Mr Regling, you are going to request from the Middle Kingdom.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is important that the foremost European institutions have welcomed Italy’s proposals to tackle the crisis, seeing them as a strong and credible commitment. Today the statements of Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso represent a positive acknowledgement of the Italian Government’s commitment to finding genuine solutions for economic and structural recovery, balancing the budget and boosting development and employment.

I think that Europe is aware of the sacrifices that it is asking of Italy and of all Member States. That is precisely why we must welcome and see as significant the fact that the Commission has today renewed its commitment to supporting the Member States in these tough measures, proposing a European economic governance plan that aims to stimulate growth in the euro area, through employment-specific policies among others, and looking again at Eurobonds and the financial transactions tax.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the big winner from these summits continues to be financial capital, with its offshore investments, tax havens, derivatives and speculative financial products, protected by the German directorate. The workers and peoples of our Member States, especially those of countries with weaker economies, are notable by their absence from the conclusions.

Apparently, the banks are in favour of a 50% haircut on Greek debt; debt that they helped to boost with speculative interest rates. However, the money to pay for their recapitalisation will come from public funds. This is an act of veritable looting of the public purse, as this money is obtained by impoverishing the people, by cutting wages and benefits, by increasing working hours, by mass privatisations, and by clearing the way for big business and the financial sector to continue making their profits.

That is why we support solidarity and the struggle of the workers, as in the case of the general strike that will take place in Portugal on 24 November.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, it was high time the European Council finally committed itself to a comprehensive aid package aimed primarily at helping those economies that are mired in debt.

There is no question that a 50% debt write-off by the banks will give the Greek economy time and space to draw breath and obtain fresh funds. The second Greek rescue package clearly reflects the principle that the banks must play their part in dealing with the crisis.

Reinforcing the European Financial Stability Facility provides a safety net. It is quite right that it should first of all help Member States in their hour of need and only in second place – subject to compliance with certain conditions – the banks, which will also be required to make the necessary adjustments in their own operations.

Of course there are still doubts and details to be clarified. The response of the market makes this clear too. However, I would like to think that we are over the worst, and that this solution will have a stabilising effect not only on countries struggling under the debt crisis, but on the whole of Europe.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, I think it is fair to say that there was broad consensus in today’s discussion that yesterday’s decisions were important. Most of the Members welcomed those decisions. However, there is still a lot of work to do. I want once again, on behalf of the Commission, to state that the Commission will stay very committed, working with this Parliament to achieve what I believe are our common goals.

It is true that there are sometimes, between the different institutions, different positions in a sometimes dialectic relationship, but nevertheless I want to underline that in the preparation of this European Council and Euro Summit, the cooperation between the President of the European Council and myself and between his team and my team was really exemplary. It is important that at the same time as having different views on different issues we also stay committed to this spirit of all institutions working together to achieve more results for Europe and its citizens.

I will very briefly address some of the concrete issues put forward by the distinguished Members of this House. First of all, many of you spoke about banks and why we are taking decisions for banks and not being tougher with them. I would like to highlight that point 5 of the Annex to the European Council conclusions clearly states – and you will remember this was also our proposal in the Commission roadmap – that banks should first use private sources of capital, including through restructuring and conversion of debt to equity instruments and then that banks should be subject to constraints regarding the distribution of dividends and bonus payments until the target has been attained. Yesterday, in the European Council, I said to the European Heads of State and Government that the Commission is ready to bring forward a regulation if they really want to be sure that the banks will respect this orientation.

Another point that was highlighted by some of you was tax evasion. I would remind you that in my State of the Union address and afterwards in the roadmap I have been urging the Council to finally give the Commission the mandate to negotiate with third countries. Unfortunately this has not yet been done. At the same time we can – internally in the European Union – try to see what we can do to avoid this kind of behaviour. As you know, Commissioner Šemeta is working on this matter, but I have to tell you very frankly that this is one of the most difficult issues, and the fact that anonymity is required renders it even more difficult.

Regarding the economic governance of the euro area, let me put things clearly. We are in the current situation in Europe not only because there was irresponsible financial behaviour but also because our Member States – or most of them – did not respect their commitments regarding the Stability and Growth Pact. I am saying this not only today here in front of you. I also said it yesterday in front of all the Heads of State and Government. I said also that some Member States did not report their national statistics accurately, with at least one Member State manipulating the statistics in a fraudulent way. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that we cannot accept in the future. This is why it is important to have convergence, but also discipline. If we want to have a true European Economic Union we need both. It is not just about convergence, we need more discipline so that we can achieve a higher degree of integration. I believe the Heads of Government and our Member States are learning that lesson.

The reality is that yesterday, if you look at the conclusions, they went beyond our proposals, which you adopted, on Stability and Growth Pact reinforcement. For instance, in point 26(e), they make a commitment – of course it is a political commitment, but it is an important one – that at national level they will stick to the recommendations of the Commission and the relevant Commissioner regarding the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact – even before any kind of formal decision by the Council.

I believe that we do have the circumstances where governments understand that, if they really want to keep financial stability and to stick to a common currency, more discipline, more integration and more convergence is needed. Of course, I really welcome this drive.

Some of you mentioned, or put questions about, investments. I fully agree with you. This is not only about austerity. We need growth, and to have growth we need more investment – public investment. Since many of our Member States do not have the fiscal space to do this, we are proposing to use the Community level so that we can promote growth through some kind of public investment. In the European Council discussion on growth I had the occasion to put forward some proposals, such as project bonds, the Connecting Europe Facility and the possibility of anticipating some of the proposals for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, so that we can also show our citizens that we are serious when we speak about the possibilities of growth and are ready to make some kind of public investment, being committed to sustainable, inclusive growth and also to employment.

I want to conclude by saying that there is a lot of work to do. Now we have a better basis to go forward, but in fact some of the decisions that we took yesterday at the Euro Area Summit, and also in the European Council, have to be followed by consistent, determined implementation. That is where I want to ask you also to make the case for Europe in our own countries, as was highlighted on several occasions. Sometimes in Europe, when people criticise the European Union, they should be more precise about what they are criticising. Is it the European Union as a project? Is it our joint resolve or is it the attitude of some specific movements or political leaders? We need, more than ever, a stronger European Union; we need more than ever a strong euro and we will work for that if there is convergence between the main institutions. I can tell you that the Commission will stay very committed to this Community approach, looking forward to the very important work ahead.

(Applause)

  Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. − (NL) Mr President, honourable members, after a sleepless night, I would prefer to use my own language because this will enable me to express myself with more accuracy. I am pleased to have heard so many positive things today. I have to get used to it. I cherish this moment. I think that it happens too rarely to let it pass without comment.

(Applause)

In any case, if someone uses the expression ‘too little, too late’, they must also indicate what they are referring to: of what is there ‘too little’, and with what is one ‘too late’? If the markets are your reference point, you must choose your argument. You cannot say that we should not listen to the markets because they are based on speculative movements which are negative and biased, and then, at the same time, blame us for not being able to keep up with the rhythm and speed of the markets. It is one or the other. In any case, political decision-making will always be behind the markets. This is why it is all the more important – as some have said here – to show direction, to follow a course and, even if one might give the impression of acting slowly, to always move consistently in the same direction. I am happy to admit that we have not always managed that.

In analysing the crisis, we must be accurate. There are problems with decision-making at EU level, at the collective level, but there are also many problems at Member State level. The crisis began in Greece and then spread in the autumn to Ireland and then on to Portugal. These countries hesitated for a long while before calling in the Emergency Fund, and an appalling amount of time was wasted. The consequence of this is that we have sometimes acted after the event. Now there are some countries that should have taken measures earlier and failed to do so, but that, under pressure, including from their partners, were persuaded a few months ago to introduce important reforms. The crisis is therefore not just a crisis at the level of decision-making by the institutions – if it ever was – but is primarily a crisis at the level of individual Member States. This is all too easily forgotten and disregarded.

A second comment that has just been made is that we ‘have only taken decisions of principle’. I have to say that that is how it always is. Decisions that are taken are often decisions of principle. They are then put into effect. Mr Bisky has just quoted Goethe, so I will quote Racine:

(FR) ‘The drama is complete, it is just the verse that remains to be written.’

(NL) We have therefore taken very important decisions effectively in all those areas. As far as the banks are concerned, I have a written agreement from the banks and not just something plucked from thin air. Of course, we do need to develop what has been decided in legal and financial terms, but the breakthrough has been made, the drama has been written. In any case, therefore, we made a lot more progress than was expected. Various models exist for what is known as leveraging – making the most of the possibilities offered by the Emergency Fund. These models do need to be sketched out, of course, but no further decisions are necessary. They can easily be combined and their effects cumulated. It is therefore not the case that we do not know where we are going. We just have to push things forward and further develop contacts with the private sector.

On the question of recapitalisation, of course there is time until 30 June of next year. It is not as if we could just find EUR 100 billion from one day to the next and pump it into the banks! All these things take time, but not as much time as is often suggested, and many of these decisions have already been taken in principle, and indeed more than in principle.

I will not go into all of the answers given by the President of the Commission; I am merely concerned with the institutional side of things. He did indeed speak about the European Parliament. Just look at the texts. I contributed to them myself. I am willing – even though I am not obliged – to come to Parliament after each individual eurozone meeting I chair and report on the meeting as with the European Council.

(Applause)

If you read the texts properly, you will see that they do not just deal with the three points which happened to be included in my speech or my introduction. There are pages and pages about institutional reforms. We also go even further. I am also personally willing to exchange ideas with Parliament about deeper integration of the EU (that appears in the texts) and a further strengthening of fiscal discipline (that too), and to do this in good time so as not to surprise anybody. I am not obliged to do this, but if you are willing, I will be very happy to do so.

I will not go into all the other points because I have already taken up a lot of time, but I would like to say that we are not seeing the end of the crisis at this juncture. Perhaps we have achieved a turning point. It still has to be worked out what we can do at the level of the institutions, what we can do together, but the major work still remains to be done at Member State level. Reforms need to be implemented in many countries, including some which are not at present under pressure from the market. We have now created the institution to follow this up, to monitor it and, if necessary, to force it to happen. If there is no stability at Member State level, the whole structure will not work. This is the difficult task that we will face in the coming months and years.

  President. − I would like to thank both Presidents for their presence with us this morning. This was a very important, comprehensive, deep discussion and I would like to thank all my colleagues. It was a very important discussion for the European Union, we know that very well. Democracy is working in the European Union.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the conclusions of the European Council, which are so necessary in the context of the current crisis. The agreement reached is essential, not only to rescue Greece and the euro zone but also in order to reconfirm the solidarity and unity which form the basis of European integration. European leaders have taken important decisions in terms of the sustainability of public finances, structural reforms to ensure economic growth and support for the banking sector. These are designed to enable us to overcome the crisis.

The introduction of first-class capital into the European banking system will ensure lending to the real economy. Through the injection of EUR 100 billion into the European banking system, the collapse of many of the banks holding billions of euro in Greek state bonds will be avoided. It is important to maintain capital flows in EU countries, including those that are not in the euro area, including Romania. At the same time, these measures must be backed by the adoption of a viable model of European economic governance in order to ensure that we truly overcome the recession and to prevent a recurrence of similar crises in the future. We must at the same time intensify dialogue at international level in order to promote clear and appropriate rules to ensure the optimal functioning of global markets.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Last night Europe underwent major ‘open heart surgery’. There were some very difficult moments, and even doubts as to the outcome of the operation. However, today the patient feels well, or as well as possible following an operation. If there are no complications it will recover, which is what I wholeheartedly wish. ‘Shock therapy’ urged the Member States to take concrete decisions. After nearly 10 hours of negotiations, it proved possible to achieve compromises that are intended to result in a reduction of the Greek debt by EUR 100 billion (from the current level of EUR 350 billion). It has also been agreed to ‘multiply’ the borrowing capacity of the European Financial Stability Mechanism up to around EUR 1 billion and to provide additional capitalisation for the key EU banks to the tune of around EUR 106 billion. The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, intends to steer Greece to ‘the road to health’, so that by 2020 it can reduce its national debt to the level of 120% (as opposed to the current level of 162%). President Barroso is right when he says that ‘exceptional times call for exceptional measures’. These decisions have already produced clear results. This morning the world stock exchanges have registered the highest growth in the last two months, and the euro is doing rather well. I believe that the current situation calls for a programme of radical reforms; the only pity is that the patient was not given the necessary medicine – to say nothing about preventive treatment …

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – Mr President, President of the European Council and of the Commission, I believe that yesterday’s Council meeting proved how tough the situation is at the moment. There is no quick and easy solution, taking into account the enormous number of economic variables and possible consequences that must be kept in mind. Recent years have shown that most of the measures that have been taken so far have been inadequate. If members of the eurozone cannot curtail their spending and balance their budgets, then we are likely to face an even greater crisis. We cannot go on living indefinitely beyond our means - we must return to the real economy. I am concerned that, if the increase of the EFSF and the rest of the package do not live up to our expectations and Greece defaults, it will diminish investors’ trust in investing in the rest of the eurozone. I hope that further concrete measures to tackle the growing debts in the eurozone will be presented without delay.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D), in writing. – (EL) We welcome the agreement achieved at the summit following lengthy consultations. We hope that it marks the beginning of the end of the crisis. However, we have reservations as to whether the neoliberal recipes being promoted will have the anticipated results, as it was these very recipes that caused the disaster. We need a more radical review of things. We would also note that the measures taken today should have been taken far more promptly. Unfortunately Greece and the citizens of Greece are living the dire consequences of a very strict austerity policy which had to be imposed on them, as there was a lack of integrated European measures during the crisis and a delay in declaring the necessary Community solidarity. Citizens in other countries in southern Europe face similar problems. We would also note that stability without growth and without an integrated investment strategy and without stamping out tax evasion is no solution. The European Parliament needs to be involved in the decisions taken to get us out of the crisis, alongside the European Council and the European Commission.

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The agreement reached last night is equal to the situation in which we found ourselves. It is the start of a new chapter in the history of Europe. We owe this agreement first and foremost to France and to the incredible tenacity of President Sarkozy. The only battles that are sure to be lost are those that are not fought in the first place. President Sarkozy has convinced his colleagues from the other Member States and made the banks face up to their responsibilities. Greece would not be in its current position had the banks done their job properly and ensured that the country was able to pay back its debts. They took risks, and today, at last, they are bearing those risks by writing off half of the Greek debt. This crisis shows that we need more Europe, at least for the euro area, and I hope that we will move towards economic federalism by creating a true economic government in the euro area. Lastly, it is essential that we harmonise our budgetary and fiscal policies and make the golden rule an obligation for all the Member States.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The introduction of the European Semester has fundamentally changed the coordination of fiscal and economic policies at European level. I think that all Member States should, at the level of the European Council, make a clear commitment to target public spending at economic growth and job creation. Moreover, all Member States should also firmly commit themselves to revising their programmes related to Structural Funds by setting new priorities for projects and focusing on education and research, high employment, implementation of the Digital Agenda and improving the conditions for enhanced economic growth and reducing the differences between regions. In order to increase confidence in the banking sector, national supervisory authorities will require banks to increase the level of the highest quality capital to 9% by 2012, as a temporary measure.

I consider it necessary to restrict the payment of dividends and bonuses by banks until the financial crisis is over, in other words, not only until the 9% target is met. We ask that the Member States that are not part of the euro area and the European Parliament be informed in detail about preparations for and the results of high level meetings.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), in writing. – (NL) If we are to believe some of the comments, the Heads of State or Government have tonight definitively saved the euro. Tonight, Europe has indeed taken a small step forwards, but the agreed measures will only be able to provide some short-term comfort. I thus do not share the euphoria that some people are feeling at the moment. Take the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), for example. The expansion of the EFSF is needlessly complicated and indeed inefficient. The responsibility for buying up government bonds has been given to the EFSF, but without the Facility being given adequate resources to do so. EUR 1 000 billion really will not be enough to build a protective wall for Italy and Spain. The solution that the Heads of State or Government hammered out in the European Council consists merely of financial high-tech and not of measures that have an impact on the real economy and the social fabric of Europe. The Council is completely on the side of the financial markets rather than that of the citizens. We have not learned anything about fair pay, job creation or investment in the economy. A tottering economy will never recover by availing itself of financial chicanery.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The outcome of yesterday’s EU summit has at least brought us one thing – a result at last. The results are to be welcomed, as they definitely are ‘proper measures’. A haircut of 50% for Greece is a sign of ‘European solidarity’. I would like to stress that this debt relief for Greece ought to have been implemented this time last year and it would have spared us – Europe – a lot of problems. It is always possible to be wiser in hindsight. We – the EU – have hopefully learnt from our mistakes and therefore I would like to offer a reminder about responsibility and prudence – in relation to our citizens, courage for caution and far-sightedness and promptness – with regard to compliance with the debt quotas and, above all, where the promised EFSF lever is concerned.

7. Sakharov Prize 2011 (announcement of winners)

  President. – The Conference of Presidents has unanimously decided today on the award of this year’s Sakharov Prize. This is an important decision and our most important prize. It has been won by five representatives of the Arab Spring. I shall announce, ladies and gentlemen, their names: Mohamed Bouazizi of Tunisia – posthumously; Asmaa Mahfouz of Egypt; Ahmed al-Zubair Ahmed al-Sanusi of Lybia; Razan Zeitouneh and Ali Farzat of Syria.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is our way of expressing support for the events going on in the countries that are our nearest neighbours. It is also an expression of the fact that we adhere to the fundamental values on which our European Union has been built. It is an expression of solidarity with the Arab world and a tribute to those who are ushering in change in the countries that are our southern neighbours.

IN THE CHAIR: DIANA WALLIS
Vice-President

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, I should like to draw Parliament’s attention to the devastating flooding in Italy, around Liguria and Tuscany. So far seven deaths have been discovered, six people are still missing, hundreds have been displaced and roads and bridges have been destroyed. I should like Parliament to make its voice heard in the appropriate places, as far as it can, for the necessary aid to be provided to these seriously damaged areas.

  President. − Mr Morganti, we note what you have said.

8. Voting time

  President. − The next item is the vote.

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

8.1. Ombudsman's annual report 2010 (A7-0285/2011 - Iliana Malinova Iotova) (vote)

8.2. Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (A7-0294/2011 - Roberta Angelilli) (vote)

8.3. Qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection (A7-0271/2011 - Jean Lambert) (vote)

8.4. Request for an opinion of the Court of Justice on the compatibility of the EU-Australia PNR agreement with the Treaties (B7-0537/2011) (vote)

8.5. EU-Australia agreement on the processing and transfer of PNR data (A7-0364/2011 - Sophia in 't Veld) (vote)

8.6. Situation in Egypt and Syria, in particular of the Christian communities (B7-0542/2011) (vote)

– Before the vote on paragraph 5:

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I shall quickly read a technical amendment that has already been agreed with the other groups. Paragraph 5 states:

Calls on the EU Member States to strictly abide by the EU common position on arms exports; urges the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, to urge Member States to fully implement, and comply with, the requirements of the common position.’

(The oral amendment was accepted)

8.7. Current developments in Ukraine (B7-0543/2011) (vote)

8.8. Public health threat of antimicrobial resistance (B7-0538/2011) (vote)

  President. − That concludes the vote.

9. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Iliana Malinova Iotova (A7-0285/2011)

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the EU Ombudsman has a central role in making the European institutions more open and transparent and should defend citizens’ right to have access to documents, as also affirmed in the report that we have voted on. However, the reality – according to a recent survey commissioned by Parliament and the European Ombudsman on citizens’ rights – is that they know rather little about what their rights are.

The results of the Eurobarometer survey show that the right to move and reside freely within the Union is one of the best-known rights and the most important according to the majority of survey participants. Meanwhile, the right to submit a complaint to the European Ombudsman is only third among the rights known by EU citizens. Moreover, 85% of participants said that they do not feel informed about the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Therefore, in congratulating Mr Diamandouros on his re-election in January 2010 to the post of European Ombudsman, as well as for the 36 000 complaints dealt with and the completion of more than 3 800 inquiries in the 15 years that this institution has existed, we have voted in favour of this measure. However, we did wonder whether providing citizens with more information on their rights – which is what they want and what they are asking for – would not, perhaps, in hindsight, be just as efficient a way to resolve their complaints.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the investigation of examples of maladministration on the part of the EU institutions constitutes an important aspect of the Ombudsman’s activities, because openness and transparency in the area of administration are among values inherent in the open societies of the Member States. This is why the European Parliament appoints the Ombudsman and supervises his work through the Committee on Petitions.

As is clear from the report for the previous year the highest number of complaints, and as many as 33% of enquiries which have been closed, still relate to the problem of public access to EU documents. Thus the activities of the Ombudsman’s office, their actions and advice do not translate, as would be expected, into a better quality of operation in the institutions against whom the complaints have been lodged. Certain parts of the report may actually serve to allay the concerns of the personnel in administrations responsible for poor performance, which prompts the question as to whether the allocation of huge sums to the work of the Ombudsman’s office is justified. Proceeding from these considerations I have abstained from the vote.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). - (CS) Madam President, I abstained from voting on the report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2010 because, among other things, I cannot support the point where the European Parliament congratulates the Ombudsman for reducing the average time needed for completing investigations of individual cases. I personally consider the time taken, which is still nine months, to be extremely long. The investigation of one case still, incidentally, costs four times more than at the European Court of Human Rights.

Report: Roberta Angelilli (A7-0294/2011)

  Anja Weisgerber (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, today’s vote in the European Parliament aimed at combating Internet pornography is pioneering the protection of our children. We will have more protection for the victims and better prevention. The measures adopted will enable better prevention of all abuse of children, in particular the growing phenomenon of child pornography on the Internet. National laws are not enough to combat child Internet pornography. Here the European Union offers us an opportunity to stamp out these grievous activities on a Europe-wide basis. As a young mother, it is a particular concern and very important for me that pornographic material involving children should be taken down off the Internet immediately. I therefore welcome the decision to prescribe the deletion of such material as the ideal solution.

The new regulations also provide a greater level of protection for the victims throughout Europe through higher, more stringent penalties for the perpetrators. I fully support the comprehensive approach taken by the directive. The legal framework is every bit as important as information and prevention measures. This law puts us on the right path for protecting the youngest members of our society.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I fully support and am delighted by the results of the vote on this Directive for a variety of reasons. According to recent studies, between 10% and 20% of European children are at risk of suffering sexual abuse during childhood. The size of the problem and its cross-border nature require the European Union to take swift action.

I am pleased that the agreement was approved in this House and therefore immediately adopted by the Council. It will replace the current legislation, which is obsolete since it dates back to 2004, and this will happen in double-quick time since there is already an agreement at first reading with the Council. I welcome the fact that this Directive contains new concepts and offences that are being introduced into EU legislation for the first time. Online grooming will become a fully-fledged crime in Europe, as will sexual tourism, whether or not it is committed on the territory of a Member State or outside the European Union, as long as it is committed by a European citizen.

The various databases of the Member States that collect the requisite information for monitoring sexual abuse and exploitation of children are of major importance. They must be able to interact with ever-increasing speed and accuracy so that these crimes, which are increasingly thoroughly organised, cannot find any loopholes or happen across bureaucratic delays that could result in recidivism. Zero tolerance: that is the watchword of this measure, which I am proud to have voted for.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of Ms Angelilli’s report because it tackles a problem that, as a mother and grandmother, affects me deeply. Protecting children from sexual exploitation, abuse and the disgusting world of child pornography means defending our children and our grandchildren, and hence the most vulnerable.

Greater prevention, harsher criminal punishments for offenders and more careful child protection are the core points of the document voted on today. The road is, without doubt, a long one. I am thinking in particular about the dissemination of child pornography over the Internet, which can only be fought through close cooperation between Member States, police forces and Internet providers.

Motion for a resolution RC-B7-0542/2011

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, it is not enough to vote on a motion for a resolution; we must take action on a daily basis to ensure that Christians around the world do not suffer persecution. Not only because Europe has Christian roots – or should I say Christianity is our religion – but because this is first and foremost a human rights and minority rights issue.

If we think about the decline of the Christian population in Syria from 10% to 8%, and the fact that in Egypt several thousand Christians have been forced to convert to Islam, or that Christian minorities in Iraq, who have survived centuries of dictatorships, are now dying out, the responsibility facing the European Union is enormous. This is, on the one hand, because we should not be ashamed of our Christian past, and on the other, because within the EU we should not tolerate discrimination of any sort against ethnic or religious minorities. We still have a great deal to do, especially in terms of setting an example and leading by example.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, the position of religious minorities has been a cause of concern to the European Parliament on many occasions. Following the democratic revolution, and after Mubarak’s administration withdrew, in Egypt it was believed and hoped that a new age would dawn. The attacks on religious minorities, however, have only continued.

Although Egypt is at a critical and difficult stage in its transition to democracy, outrages committed against human beings are never acceptable. All citizens must have the right to express their opinion freely. A total of 25 Egyptian citizens died and more than 300 were injured quite needlessly during a peaceful march. Coptic Christians were marching to protest against an attack on a church. They were marching against discrimination and calling for a law to be enacted in the country to criminalise religious discrimination. Furthermore, they have every right to do so.

The Egyptian state needs to rebuild the church that came under attack immediately, and initiate genuine national dialogue, for Egypt also to have a future.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I am pleased to see that the refusal of certain sections in this House to deal with the plight of Christians in the Middle East and beyond has after many years come to an end and that we are now taking a more systematic approach. The Christian minorities in the Middle East and North Africa are under particular threat even in those countries where, happily, democratisation is taking place. If Europe does not stand up for these minorities, then who will? As Europeans, we are the natural champions of these minorities.

However, this commitment also applies to the majority groups in such societies. It has always been to the credit of Islam that Christians who have lived for centuries under its rule have not just survived, but actually played a leading role in society. Now, in the 21st century, these minorities are under threat of extinction. Democracy means rule by the majority, however, the acid test is how minorities are treated.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, first of all a statistic that explains the gravity of the situation: three quarters of the people around the world persecuted and discriminated against due to their faith are Christians. The Pope recently reminded us of this during the 12 September summit in Rome, where among others representatives of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe met to discuss hate crimes against Christians.

In the resolution we talk about Egypt, where the risks are currently high since there is a strong Christian community accounting for 10% of the population, and Syria, where genuine crimes against humanity may be taking place, according to the United Nations Commissioner. However I must point out that these crimes also take place in various parts of Asia, as well as in Africa, I refer to the recent episodes of persecution in the Philippines, India and Pakistan.

Crimes against Christians are increasing worryingly: we are seeing violence and aggressive behaviour against priests, worshippers and Protestant street preachers, and above all attacks on churches and cemeteries in an atmosphere of total lack of religious freedom, which should include the right to preach, educate, convert, contribute to political discourse and participate fully in public life. Many Christians in the world are not allowed to do these things.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the persisting religious intolerance and discrimination against citizens of the Coptic faith in Egypt is, unfortunately, gaining in intensity and proportion. The military intervention on the Coptic Christians in Cairo in early October following the protest against the attack on a church in the province of Aswan caused almost thirty deaths and dealt severe injuries to more than 350 Egyptian citizens. The exodus of more than 100 000 Coptic Christians who, in fear of their lives, are seeking refuge for themselves and their families abroad, provides testimony to the persecution and fear of continued violent attacks, including the complete destruction of churches. The weakened state and social establishment is being abused by Islamic extremists. The Egyptian authorities must – whilst respecting basic human rights – adopt more robust measures for the prevention and repression of religiously motivated criminal acts and religious violence, and ensure freedom of religion for all citizens, including the Coptic Christians.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, it is very important that the European Union, which is a community of values, intervenes in such matters as these, and at the same time sends a very clear message to Egypt and Syria that religious minorities, Christian minorities, must be treated properly. It is difficult for us to export to those countries the notions of democracy, human rights, freedom of opinion and the rule of law. They are still distant dreams, although some believed that the Arab Spring would lead to this. Still it seems, however, that they are very distant dreams.

Freedom of religion does not mean that people are freed from all religion, but that they have the right to practise their own faith. As far as the Copts are concerned, they have had to suffer very greatly in Egypt, and pay a high price for their religious convictions. Similarly, the Christians in Syria have gone underground, because of the tyranny that reigns there at present.

Regarding this, the European Parliament and European Union have real potential for speaking up for these Christians, and sending a clear message to both Syria and Egypt that these people have a right to human dignity, integrity and a decent life in their own country and, above all, to freedom of religion.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the sectarian violence in Egypt stands in stark contrast to the united movement which characterised the first phase of the revolution in Egypt. Then we saw working-class people, young people, older people, unemployed people and poor farmers fighting together across the religious divide to overthrow the hated dictatorship of Mubarak and to fight for real social change. It is the strength of that united movement that strikes fear into the heart of the military regime and the ruling class that they represent. That fear has returned to haunt them in recent times when they face significant strike movements of textile workers and teachers, to give two examples: people fighting for wage rises and to continue the revolutionary process.

The increase in sectarianism plays into the hands of the elite in Egypt who want to divide and rule working-class people. To move forward, what is needed is a united movement of workers across the divide to continue and deepen the revolution, fighting on the basis of a socialist programme to transform Egyptian society, to sweep away the remnants of the old regime and to obtain real social change.

Motion for a resolution RC-B7-0543/2011

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, the European Union must support a stable and democratic Ukraine, one that respects the principles of a social market economy and the rule of law, protects minorities and guarantees human rights. Such a Ukraine does not exist today, as the Tymoshenko case clearly shows us.

In Ukraine at present, there is more talk than action, but I believe that the country will still meet the conditions of EU membership. I nevertheless wish to point out that the Association Agreement is such an important step for Ukraine on its journey towards Europe that it is justifiable to sign it in December.

The European Commission should carefully monitor developments in Ukraine and the progress of change and reform. Ukraine is not in any special position: it needs to conform to European standards, just like the other Balkan countries that want to join the EU. Ukraine needs the will and the courage to reform. It needs a genuine national dialogue with all of society participating.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). – (ET) Madam President, I too would like to explain why I supported this resolution and why I voted against certain parts of it. Firstly, I am also a co-author of this resolution, which is far from perfect, especially the part stated in clause two, which asserts that the legal proceedings against Tymoshenko constitute a violation of human rights. I do not think so and as a result I voted against that. I do, however, support the resolution as a compromise here in parliament, and I do so because this resolution offers to Ukraine, the government of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine a very clear European prospect. I strongly approve of clause one, in which it is stated that any European country that fulfils the criteria will one day be entitled to become a member of the European Union.

Of course I presume that Ukraine will continue its reforms and perform all of the obligations it has assumed, but another reason for which I support this resolution is that it states precisely that before the summit to be held at the end of this year, possibilities to continue negotiations will be reviewed.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I believe that this is a very important decision because, unlike some drafts, it refers clearly to a rapprochement between the EU and Ukraine, rather than Ukraine’s rapprochement to Europe. Ukraine is Europe and always has been Europe!

It is a scandal that a leading representative of the EU yesterday told a select circle that the governments of the Member States were unable to agree whether or not Ukraine is a European country. It is unmistakably a European country, in contrast to Turkey. However, of course, it is unable to accede in any form at present. It is also, unfortunately, a country in decline. It is the task of the European Parliament to speak out about this clearly. Ms Tymoshenko is not the only one being persecuted in an unacceptable way – the entire opposition is suffering discrimination and persecution. This is unacceptable.

We are engaging in a clear and critical manner with the mistakes being made in this important country precisely because we consider Ukraine a European country at heart.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the conviction of the former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has caused disappointment to general public opinion. The sentence was handed down in a trial that raised huge concerns as to its compliance with international standards of fair, transparent and, above all, independent court proceedings. In my view, it is justice with a strong political colouring, a regrettable fact.

With a view to promoting the broadest cooperation between the EU’s Member States, including Poland, and Ukraine, and being an indefatigable supporter of Ukraine’s aspirations for integration, I call upon the authorities in Kiev to ensure that the accused and convicted former members of the government have access to a fair appeal procedure. I hope that President Viktor Yanukovych will do his best to prevent the deterioration of current relations with Brussels. At the same time I appeal to the Polish Presidency, active in the field of the Eastern Partnership, to get involved, so that the present situation can have a positive outcome. This is especially important in view of the fact that negotiations on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement are about to be concluded.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks and months there have been many attempts by the Heads of State or Government and by Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy, among others, to uphold the rule of law in Ukraine. Ms Tymoshenko and others are in prison, persecuted on legal principles that no longer apply under any rule of law, on the basis of legislation introduced by Stalin in 1927, probably targeting Leo Trotsky. We must see this as a systematic attempt to discourage the opposition from fielding candidates and taking part in the democratic process. This is a further step, following last year’s falsified elections and the obvious present moves to change the electoral system, contrary to the wishes of the Venice Commission.

Ukraine is a European country with a European perspective. We want to see association agreements with Ukraine, but this requires that Ukraine should move in the right direction and should not systematically persecute the opposition and flout the rule of law. It is for this reason that the fate of Ukraine and its citizens lies in the hands of President Yanukovych.

Motion for a resolution B7-0538/2011

  Anna Záborská (PPE). − (SK) Madam President, as many as 53% of Europeans believe that antibiotics kill viruses. Almost half of them believe that antibiotics can treat influenza and the common cold. They are also widely used in stockfarming. The result is the excessive use of antibiotics and the increasing resistance of bacterial strains. This problem transcends the boundaries of individual Member States and, therefore, joint European action is appropriate.

Public health is truly under threat and it was with some satisfaction that I supported this resolution, which speaks not only of a system for the monitoring of resistance and associated infections, but also of the joint development of new drugs against resistant micro-organisms. As a general practitioner I would have also welcomed better communication with an association of doctors and patients. Antibiotics should in fact only be used in cases where the doctor is sure of the diagnosis. In this very period, in which there tends to be an increase in cases of influenza, it is necessary to devote more time and financial resources to an information campaign.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Iliana Malinova Iotova (A7-0285/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it followed standard procedures, respecting submission deadlines, and also because it presents a clear description of the work of the Ombudsman. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight this body’s importance in receiving complaints concerning cases of maladministration in the activities of the Union institutions. The right to lodge a complaint with the European Ombudsman is provided for in Article 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Article 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on the Ombudsman's annual report 2010. The European Ombudsman is empowered to receive complaints concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of European Union institutions. I support the position of the rapporteur, which endorses the Ombudsman in his role of external control mechanism and welcomes the Ombudsman’s initiative to regularly publish studies examining the EU institutions’ follow-up to his critical remarks while urging the institutions to work together with the Ombudsman to improve their follow-up rate. It is important that, when the Ombudsman presents his annual report at a meeting of the Committee on Petitions, not only representatives of the European Commission but also of the respective administrations of the European Parliament, the Council and other EU institutions, agencies, services and bodies that have been the subject of an investigation, a special report, or critical remarks should be present to comment on the report and take part in the discussion. We, Members of the European Parliament, also call on the Ombudsman to keep Parliament informed of developments in his relations with the new European External Action Service and the Council.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Ombudsman plays a central role in the European institutional set-up. Elected by the European Parliament, he is responsible for examining complaints from citizens, companies and associations against the European institutions. Since I am convinced that the Ombudsman helps increase democratic transparency, I voted in favour of the Iotova report. The majority of the complaints relate to the lack of transparency in the EU administration. The Ombudsman has made some recommendations, which the European Parliament has approved, with a view to processing complaints more quickly. He recommends, for example, that there should be more coordination with the European institutions and that procedures should be simplified.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report, in which the European Parliament welcomes the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2010. The European Ombudsman performs the very important function of informing European Union citizens of the opportunities available to them to lodge complaints concerning maladministration by EU institutions. For example, last year most complaints were about a lack of transparency, public procurement and grants and the staff of EU institutions. I am pleased that many complaints were resolved amicably in 2010, which again reveals the effectiveness of the Ombudsman and his proper cooperation with other institutions. I appreciate the fact that the European Ombudsman strives to maintain an ongoing dialogue with complainants. This is very important given that the Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the role of dialogue with citizens. For the Ombudsman institution, which examines complaints, constant contact with people is essential. It is also crucial that the Ombudsman each year publishes on his website a study on the institutions’ follow-up to his remarks and criticism.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Iotova, concerns the Annual Report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2010. It is the first report drafted by the European Ombudsman, Nikiforos Diamandouros, since being sworn into office before the Court of Justice on 25 October 2010, following his re-election. The institution of the European Ombudsman, chaired by Mr Diamandouros, celebrated its 15th anniversary in September 2010. In these 15 years the institution has dealt with more than 36 000 complaints and completed more than 3 800 inquiries into possible maladministration in the activities of EU institutions, concerning instances ‘when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it’. One of the main complaints is the difficulty that citizens experience accessing EU documents. Even though it is understood that confidential documentation exists, the institutions cannot make things more difficult for the public in this respect. I welcome the adoption of this report, and hope that the Ombudsman will be able to achieve the objectives set out in the new strategy for his 2009-2014 mandate, and that the European public will be better informed of his role.

  João Ferreira and Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Annual Report on the European Ombudsman’s activities enables us to check the work done on carrying out his roles and objectives. Given that the Ombudsman has the right to analyse the substance of the actions and conclusions of the Commission when investigating complaints about breaches, it is important to check what happens with complaints and follow the development of the process. It can be seen, for example, whether the Ombudsman’s opinions are reasonable, well-argued, complete and clearly explained to the complainants. The report notes that the Ombudsman was able to help the complainants in 70% of all of the cases handled in 2010, whether by opening an inquiry himself, transferring the complaint to a competent body at EU or national level, or even giving the complainant advice on where to take his complaint. In the annual report on 2010, particular attention is given to the new strategy that the Ombudsman and his staff put together for their 2009-2014 mandate.

The objectives are as follows: listening to stakeholders by obtaining feedback from complainants, whilst broadening and deepening contacts with the EU institutions; identifying best practices in order to deliver results faster by reducing the time needed to conclude inquiries; and developing simplified procedures to promote the rapid resolution of complaints.

  Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Ombudsman, Nikiforos Diamandouros, was re-elected by Parliament in its plenary session in Strasbourg on 20 January 2010 and took his oath before the Court of Justice in Luxembourg on 25 October 2010. In May of that year, he submitted his Annual Report for 2010 to Jerzy Buzek, the President of the European Parliament. Where possible, the Ombudsman tries to achieve a positive outcome by working towards an amicable solution that is satisfactory to both the complainant and the institution concerned. In 2010 amicable solutions were found in 179 cases. If, however, an amicable solution cannot be reached, the case is either closed with a critical remark or a draft recommendation is made. In the Annual Report for 2010 special attention is drawn to the new strategy that the Ombudsman and his staff have formulated for his 2009-2014 mandate. The main objectives are to broaden and deepen contacts with EU institutions and civil society, to endeavour to provide a more rapid resolution of complaints and to provide useful information to stakeholders and the public. The institution of the Ombudsman will use this new strategy to underpin and guide its actions, which are aimed at ensuring that EU citizens enjoy their rights fully, and thereby also ensuring that the quality of the EU administration is enhanced.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report analyses the work of the European Ombudsman using figures and statistics. In addition, the report sets out future targets and goals for the further improvement of the office in question. I shall therefore be voting in favour.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when Europe is being criticised more and more for its remoteness from the citizens and for the lack of transparency with which it manages its affairs, I voted in favour of this text, which encourages the Ombudsman to improve access to the documents of the European institutions. The Ombudsman, in his role of providing every citizen with free and transparent access to European institutional documents, is a key contributor to European democracy. A genuine link between the citizens and the institutions, his work helps to make the European Union more open and transparent. There is still much progress to be made in this area, as the resolution emphasises, but above all as the number of complaints registered by the Ombudsman proves. The European Union is making progress on the road to transparency. It is up to the institutions and the Ombudsman to continue their efforts to make the European Union a truly modern democracy.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. − I would like to echo the report in congratulating Mr Diamandouros on his re-election. It can often be challenging to communicate the message of the EU to our constituents, and the Ombudsman plays an important part in communicating that message and ensuring that the EU institutions are as transparent as possible. I remain concerned over the disproportionately high number of transparency cases brought to the Ombudsman; this is clearly an area which requires further attention. We must continue to analyse the most frequent transparency complaints and take steps to increase transparency. We must also highlight the improvements in transparency that have already occurred. Every question asked, speech made, report amended and written declaration signed by an MEP is freely available and, in many ways, the European Parliament is far more transparent than any national parliament. However we will continue to dialogue with the citizen to strive for increased transparency.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) The Annual Report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2010 was formally submitted to the President of Parliament on 10 May 2011. I believe that attention should be drawn to the new strategy the Ombudsman has developed for his current mandate and which forms the basis for his initiatives and activities. This strategy includes, inter alia, the ongoing dialogue with complainants, civil society and other stakeholders, identifying best practices in cooperation and consultation with colleagues in the European Network of Ombudsmen, making EU procedures fairer and more transparent, and promoting a culture of service in the administrations of the EU institutions. I share the Ombudsman’s view that there is still major work to be done in persuading officials that a defensive approach to the Ombudsman represents a missed opportunity for their institutions and risks damaging the image of the Union as a whole. The answering process must be radically improved, the time taken in generating responses (especially in time-sensitive cases) must be reduced, and solution-oriented rather than defensive answers should be prepared. I note that European citizens have the right to good administration under the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. − The report emphasizes the positive work of the Ombudsman and points to a remarkable change from one year to the next. The Ombudsman has the duty to insist on important matters such as fundamental rights of access to documents, on proper implementation of the principle of transparency in the decision-making process, a citizen-friendly culture of service and a pro-active attitude by the EU’s institutions. I endorse this report, but there are still more things to be done. Moreover, I want to emphasize the fact that in the Eastern Partnership countries the Ombudsman has to be an important tool for democratisation and the EU has to be a positive example. There is Ombudsman cooperation, which has as its main objective to reinforce the powers of Ombudsman’s Offices in Eastern Partnership countries to participate in the building of democratic states that respect individuals’ rights.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The institution of the European Ombudsman was 15 years old this September. Over 36 000 complaints have been dealt with since its establishment. Both of these figures are proof enough for me that the institution of the Ombudsman is playing a significant part in making Europe more accessible and understandable to its citizens. I would like to congratulate Mr Diamandouros for his achievements. In dealing with the complaints of individuals, businesses, associations and others, the Ombudsman can determine exactly where the problems lie and where improvements could be achieved. I hope that the Ombudsman continues in his good work and that he will even manage to introduce improvements wherever possible. For example, communication with our citizens should be further improved. Likewise, there should be an attempt to further reduce the time required to bring investigations to a close. I wish Mr Diamandouros every success and look forward to continued positive collaboration in the Committee on Petitions.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Ombudsman’s 2010 Annual Report reminds us of one of the most important responsibilities of this role, which is ensuring that EU citizens are aware of their rights and how to exercise them. All too often, our citizens see the EU and its activities as remote and difficult to engage with. The fact is that we must focus all our efforts on changing this perception and, instead, build genuine awareness of the EU’s relevance for its citizens. The European Ombudsman has a crucial role in this process. Indeed, the office of the Ombudsman was conceived as a link between European citizens and the EU administration, with the aim of ensuring, among other things, continuous dialogue with complainants and civil society, promoting a culture of service in the administration of EU institutions and of making decision-making procedures fairer and more transparent.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report and am happy that the Office of the Ombudsman, which currently has an establishment plan of 64 posts (20 officials and 44 temporary agents) and a budget of around EUR 9 million, uses these resources to ensure that EU citizens enjoy their rights fully and to work to enhance the quality of the EU administration.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We welcomed the suggestions in the European Ombudsman’s 2010 annual report on a new working strategy for 2009-2014. In particular, we liked the objective – underlined several times – of listening to the interested parties to get feedback from complainants, thereby broadening and deepening contacts with EU institutions and civil society while also identifying best practices. The goal, therefore, is to improve the quality and efficiency of assisting European citizens in the event of so-called ‘maladministration’. This is all geared to achieving faster results, cutting the time needed to close investigations and developing simplified procedures to facilitate faster complaint resolution.

We think this new strategy can have a positive effect on the administrative culture of the institutions of the European Union, helping to optimise administrative procedures and concentrating on systemic problems. Improving communication with the public will play a fundamental role and it will be necessary to provide regular, timely and useful information to all parties concerned.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the rapporteur, Ms Iotova, that despite the significant progress made in recent times, more effort is needed to further reduce the time required for inquiries so as to be able to respond better to citizens’ needs. I am voting in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − The most common allegation examined by the Ombudsman in 2010 related to the lack of transparency in the EU administration. I support this report and its calls for the delivery of faster results by reducing the time needed to close inquiries and by developing simplified procedures for rapid resolutions of complaints.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The rapporteur approves the work of the Ombudsman and I agree with the rapporteur.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The office of the European Ombudsman in Strasbourg is responsible for the whole of the European Union and investigates allegations of maladministration in connection with the activities of the Union’s bodies, institutions and other offices. The Ombudsman’s activities are based on Article 8d and Article 138e of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Decision of the European Parliament (‘Statute of the European Ombudsman’) of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties. In 2010 alone, the office received 2 267 complaints, 326 of which were conclusively investigated. Twelve investigations were carried out on the Ombudsman’s own initiative. The most frequent complaints concern a lack of transparency, with Germany filing the most complaints, followed by Spain. Sixty-four temporary posts and a budget of around EUR 9 million were agreed for the period 2009-2014 in order to improve the work of the Ombudsman. I abstained from voting because I believe that the general population, above all, is not adequately informed of the activities of the Ombudsman.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome the European Ombudsman’s Annual Report on his activities in 2010, which is an excellent basis on which to learn about the Ombudsman’s work in investigating complaints by citizens, businesses and organisations and in promoting the highest administrative standards within EU institutions and bodies.

I believe that the Ombudsman’s new strategy will be an effective and appropriate framework for establishing an ongoing dialogue with complainants, civil society and other stakeholders and further encouraging harmonious relations between citizens and civil servants.

I support his initiative to regularly publish studies in which he examines the EU institutions’ follow-up to his critical remarks.

Moreover, it is very important that the Ombudsman should in future continue to operate as openly and transparently as possible and make the best possible use of available resources.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the Annual Report on the European Ombudsman’s Activities in 2010. In the annual report for 2010, submitted to Parliament, particular attention is given to the new strategy that the Ombudsman and his staff have formulated for his 2009-2014 mandate. The aims of this are not only to listen to stakeholders by obtaining feedback from complainants, broadening and deepening contacts with the EU institutions and civil society, and identifying best practices, but also to deliver results faster by reducing the time needed to conclude inquiries, and to develop simplified procedures, so as to promote the rapid resolution of complaints. I believe these are worthy and necessary objectives for an institution which is very often the public’s last resort in resolving their problems with the administration.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Considering the fundamental importance of the role played by the European Ombudsman, as demonstrated by the significant achievements of the 15 years since the office was established, I am voting in favour of the new strategy for the European Ombudsman in order to ensure that EU citizens can benefit fully from their rights.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Ombudsman, whose status is founded on Article 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, functions as a safeguard for the EU public in its interactions with the EU institutions, as set out in Article 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is a public office with two essential functions: firstly, it is a way to settle conflicts without resorting to official control bodies like the courts; secondly, it makes their status activus libertatis a reality, which is desirable for the EU public. The time of the Ombudsman’s submission of his annual report is always an ideal time to draw out lessons for the future. As such, EU policy must continue in the direction of supporting this office and seeking to disseminate information on its activities and functions. This is especially important since, in countries like Portugal, which do not have a tradition of an Ombudsman, the public are all too often not aware of this resource. On the other hand, it is also important to create a climate of cooperation between the EU institutions, so as to maximise the Ombudsman’s contribution. As these points have been vetted by Parliament, I voted for this report.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The existence of an Ombudsman is crucial to any democratic and effective relationship between administrations and citizens. According to the Ombudsman’s 2010 annual report, 2 667 complaints were received in 2010, by such an assorted group as citizens, non-governmental organisations, associations and regional offices. It is extremely encouraging to see that the Ombudsman has succeeded in helping the complainant in 70% of cases, more often than not by striving to find an amicable solution. I am also pleased to note that almost 58% of the complaints were made via the Internet. Online forms make it easier for citizens to exercise this right, and I hope that they will help to facilitate and speed up the procedures. Ms Iotova’s report, which I support, highlights these advances while proposing specific measures to improve the Ombudsman’s work: establishing an ongoing dialogue with complainants and stakeholders, increasing transparency by promoting full access to documents, strengthening the dialogue between the European Ombudsman and national ombudsmen, and disseminating best practices. These advances are necessary, and I am delighted that they have been included in the report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. On 10 May 2011, the European Ombudsman presented his Annual Report 2010 to Jerzy Buzek, the President of the European Parliament. On 23 May 2011 he presented his report at the meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, which is the committee responsible for relations with his institution. Mr Nikiforos Diamandouros, the European Ombudsman, was re-elected by the European Parliament in its plenary Strasbourg session on 20 January 2010 and he took the solemn oath of office before the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg on 25 October 2010. The legal basis for the European Ombudsman’s mandate is Article 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and he is empowered to receive complaints concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of European Union institutions(1).

The right to complain to the European Ombudsman is provided for in Article 24 TFEU and in Article 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Ombudsman’s mandate was broadened to include possible maladministration in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) One year ago, the institution of the European Ombudsman’s office celebrated its 15th anniversary. Over the years, the Ombudsman has dealt with more than 36 000 complaints and completed more than 3 800 inquiries into possible maladministration. The result of processing so many complaints is that the institution has accumulated a considerable body of experience, which gives the Ombudsman a clear insight into trends in maladministration, systemic problems and structural weaknesses in the administrations of EU institutions. This enables it to provide redress, help raise the quality of EU administrations and help ensure that good practices are being spread and applied. When possible, the Ombudsman seeks to achieve a positive outcome by working towards a friendly solution that is satisfactory to both parties. The Ombudsman’s work must, lastly, be given every opportunity to improve in the exclusive interest of European citizens.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises a range of personal, civil, political, economic and social rights of EU citizens and residents, enshrining them in EU law. While Article 41 sets out the way in which the affairs of members of the public should be dealt with, Article 43 highlights the right for petitions to be submitted to the Ombudsman in cases of maladministration in the activities of the EU institutions. I am voting for this report, as it demonstrates that the EU has made an effort to reduce the average time required for completing inquiries, and because it continues to insist on the fundamental right of access to documents and to promote the public’s trust in the EU civil service and institutions. I would also like to congratulate the Ombudsman on his clear strategy of prioritising ongoing dialogue with complainants, civil society and other stakeholders, as well as making every effort to identify the best practices adopted by his colleagues in the European Network of Ombudsmen and to make EU procedures fairer and, above all, more transparent.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which presents and evaluates the European Ombudsman’s annual report.

Having an intermediary between the citizens and the European institutions allows the people to flag up shortcomings and cases of maladministration. It turns out to be a useful asset when trying to strengthen links between citizens and institutions and to promote democracy.

This annual report, laid down in the texts, demonstrates the importance that the European Parliament accords to matters of citizenship and good administration. It is the role of the European Parliament to evaluate this work, to make suggestions for improvements and to identify new goals.

Amongst its objectives, the report mentions two that are of interest to me: the improvement of citizen access to documents so that they can understand the work of their elected representatives, and the drafting of a document on public services with the aim of introducing a public service culture into the European Union.

It remains to be seen what practical follow-up there will be to this report. Nevertheless, I remain more sceptical about this.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR), in writing. - (CS) I abstained from the vote on the report presented by Iliana Malinova Iotova on the annual report of the European Ombudsman for 2010 because, among other things, I cannot agree with the assertion that ‘the role of the Ombudsman in enhancing openness and accountability in the decision-making processes and administration of the European Union is an essential contribution towards a Union in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.’ The vast majority of Member State citizens know nothing about the activities of the European Ombudsman and have never heard of this institution.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) The mandate of the European Ombudsman is to investigate complaints about the way in which the EU’s institutions are administered. There were 2 667 new complaints registered in 2010, with the Ombudsman succeeding in bringing 326 investigations to a conclusion, more than half of them with an amicable resolution. In its 15 years of existence, the office of the European Ombudsman has succeeded in gathering broad expertise in relation to the structural administrative weaknesses of the EU, enabling the Ombudsman to offer frequent support to the European Parliament and its work. I have voted in favour of this report.

Report: Roberta Angelilli (A7-0294/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) In this proposal for a directive, the Commission is intending to make progress on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and the depiction of sexual acts involving persons under the age of 18 years. The proposal assumes that criminal offences in this area are on the increase, and that the development of modern means of communication is exacerbating this problem, while criminal and administrative legislation, and regulations in the EU Member States are neither tough enough nor coherent enough. The proposal contains provisions setting out criminal offences and penalties. Nonetheless, it should be stressed that electronic media content depicting sexual acts involving persons under the age of 18 must be removed as rapidly as possible. Blocking mechanisms are of limited effect, imprecise and easily bypassed. What we need is a multidimensional strategy that will strengthen and enhance the cooperation between police forces, Internet operators, existing Internet complaints bodies and the International Association of Internet Hotlines network of Internet service providers.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this important resolution on the Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children are particularly serious forms of crime as they are directed against children, the most vulnerable members of our society. These crimes cause long-term physical, psychological and social harm to victims and undermine the core values of a modern society relating to the special protection of children and trust in the relevant State institutions. Therefore, I strongly support the introduction of stricter and higher penalties for the crimes mentioned. I fully support this document, which aims to establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes, while also aiming to introduce provisions to strengthen the prevention of the crime and the protection of its victims. It is of great importance that we Members of the European Parliament have voted in favour of introducing the concept of ‘child sex tourism’ for the first time in EU legislation and have also taken strict measures against websites containing or disseminating child pornography.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report in view of the importance of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. This document aims to establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes. As the European Parliament report underlines, this directive should be fully complementary with the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims. In addition to that, this report asks for reinforced protection for victims and prevention measures, both at EU level and at Member States level. The text stresses also that Member States must ensure the prompt removal of web-pages containing or disseminating child pornography hosted in their territory and endeavour to obtain the removal of such pages hosted outside of their territory, measures that I consider to be of primary importance.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Firmly committed as I am to respect for fundamental rights and to combating the sexual abuse of children, I voted in favour of the report by my colleague Ms Angelilli. The report introduces measures relating to the prevention of such abuse, the prosecution of offenders and the protection of victims.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. − (GA) More than 200 new pornographic photographs of children are posted on the Internet every day, therefore the EU must introduce legislation that would empower the EU and Member States to adopt strong coordinated measures to protect children and to prosecute appropriately those who take advantage of them.

It is not good enough that effective coordination is not taking place in the EU to combat the sexual abuse of children. A comprehensive approach must be implemented, including the prosecution of offenders, the protection of children and the prevention of such offences. People could be prevented from accessing this content online and the EU could be empowered to prohibit certain sites from outside the EU. Coordinated penalties and minimum sentences for 20 offences would provide a strong foundation for a coordinated European approach. It is also a strong point that Member States can impose stronger penalties when deemed necessary.

I also support the recommendation in relation to implementing legal measures in all Member States to ensure protection for victims during legal proceedings.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, including child pornography, constitute serious violations of fundamental rights, in particular children’s right to the protection and care necessary for their well-being, as laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This report provides for tougher criminal penalties against those sexually abusing children or accessing child pornography on the Internet. It also forces Member States to remove websites with child pornography content. Where this is not possible, access to these sites must be blocked. It criminalises the soliciting of children through the Internet for sexual purposes or child sex tourism, whether the crime is committed in the territory of a Member State or by a European citizen outside Europe. It also provides for banning, temporarily or permanently, people convicted of sexual crimes from professional activities involving direct or regular contact with children. I therefore voted for this report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament report because this Directive is a huge step forward in ensuring as far as possible that there is broader and more effective cooperation between EU Member States and between the EU and third countries in combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Studies show that about 10-20% of minors in Europe may have experienced sexual abuse in childhood. The sexual exploitation of children is the most serious and cruellest of crimes committed against children. The European Parliament thus proposes that stiffer penalties should be imposed for such crimes throughout the EU because then the EU Member States would not be able to apply more lenient sentences to child abusers. The new Directive calls for the criminal prosecution of activities such as child grooming. It is proposed that sex tourists who go abroad to abuse children should be prosecuted on their return home. Much attention is given to the protection and support of victims and subsequent crime prevention. It has been agreed in this Directive that children and parents must be educated about online dangers, and that psychological and other types of help should be given to victims and their families. One of the most important achievements of this Directive is the prevention of such crimes through, for example, education, the training of officials working in the area, and cooperation with relevant civil society organisations.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − UKIP is firmly against all forms of sexual offences against children and in favour of tough, comprehensive criminal law to criminalise all forms of sexual offences against young people. The UK already has a considerable body of criminal law dealing with these crimes and remains at the forefront of developing new laws and techniques to combat perpetrators' activities as they develop in the internet age. UKIP supports the thrust of this report but cannot, as a matter of principle, concede to the EU the right to determine UK criminal law. For that reason we have abstained.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. This report is a genuine step forward in the fight against child pornography. It provides, in particular, for the possibility for employers, when recruiting a person for activities involving contact with children, to request information on that person with regard to the existence of convictions for child sexual abuse.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this directive, which provides for tougher criminal penalties against people who sexually abuse children or access child pornography on the Internet. Studies reveal that between 10 and 20% of children in Europe suffer some form of sexual abuse. I agree with the rules proposed in the directive, which also force Member States to remove websites with child pornography content or, where this is not possible, enable them to block access to these sites.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I think it is extremely important to take robust measures to protect children from things like child abuse, exploitation and child pornography. Such acts of violence cause permanent damage to children, not only in physical terms but also psychologically and socially. Hence we need to adopt more draconian measures to discourage the abuse of children in this way. In an era that is now completely dominated by information technology (IT), we have seen a terrifying increase in the dissemination of child pornography, which can be easily found through websites.

I therefore support preventative measures that can restrict access to sites that disseminate videos and photos containing children. I also think a global joining of forces would be worthwhile and necessary in order to build international cooperation on fighting such despicable abuse. Action to prevent these phenomena is just as important: a society that protects children would make such behaviour inacceptable in short order.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. − (RO) In the current political, economic and financial context, children are the most exposed and most vulnerable category. Poverty, inadequate social security systems, conflicts and military interventions are the main causes leading to an increase in the number of abuses, rights violations and abandoned children. Serious offences such as the sexual exploitation of children, child pornography, abuse and detention call for strict and immediate measures, including the prosecution of offenders, their punishment, protection against unlawful recruitment and use by armed forces and armed groups, and prevention of the phenomenon. Regrettably, more and more children are being exploited and used for begging, theft and prostitution in EU countries.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) Some studies in this area have found that sexual abuse of children is underreported and underestimated most of the time, and children who are victims of sexual abuse suffer lifelong consequences. We all know that sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children are particularly serious forms of crime which have negative effects on their victims and require them to receive special care and protection. This abuse leaves serious long-term physical, psychological and social scars on its victims.

I believe that differences between national laws and procedures at the level of EU Member States might give rise to differences as regards investigation and prosecution, and convicted offenders may continue to present a danger after serving their sentences. This is why these differences should be eliminated and aligned with a European standard. I believe that a harmonisation of definitions relating to sexual abuse of children and the creation of legal certainty regarding the sexual exploitation of children should be a key objective for all Member States.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Internet is a wonderful information, communication and exchange tool. Unfortunately, however, it has also become an instrument for disseminating child pornography material, because of the anonymity it provides, its speed, its availability and the low cost to access it. Child pornography is the fastest growing criminal activity on the Internet, generating as much as USD 20 billion, according to a UN study. There is an urgent need, therefore, to combat more effectively the perpetrators of this abuse and the people who disseminate it. This type of crime takes full advantage of the ‘borderless’ nature of the new ways of distributing content on the Internet, which encourages the creation of supremely organised criminal groups. Action must therefore be taken at European level. From now on the Member States must remove at their source or, if that is not possible from a technical point of view, block, webpages containing or disseminating child pornography. To do so, they will be able to act on the basis of legislative, judicial or other measures. The European Union will also have to cooperate more effectively with third countries to secure the removal of such content when the offending sites are hosted outside the EU.

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Sexual crimes against children constitute one of the most abhorrent crimes, and we must do our utmost to prevent them from taking place. This report provides tools to do just that, and I welcome many of the new provisions. The main reason why I could not support this report is because it also introduces provisions which allow for access to certain Internet web sites to be blocked. I wholeheartedly agree that the mass dissemination of images of abuse through the Internet must be stopped; however, this can only be achieved through the removal at source of such material. However, if we want to allow blocking as a complementary measure, we must ensure that the conditions and safeguards for blocking are stringent and in conformity with our fundamental rights. This is particularly important as such provisions are being introduced in EU legislation for the very first time, and therefore set a precedent. However, the current provisions fall short of these standards because they are not stringent enough and may, therefore, pave the way for restricting internet users on a broader scale, thus leading to the censorship of the Internet on the basis of intellectual property rights breaches or other minor offences.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as it advocates tougher penalties for crimes involving child abuse, exploitation and pornography. I would stress the importance of new rules, which have already been agreed on with the EU Council of Ministers, forcing Member States to remove websites with child pornography content and reinforcing measures to prevent these crimes and protect victims.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe the sexual exploitation and abuse of children and child pornography are particularly serious crimes because they are perpetrated against people who, owing to their age, are weaker than and often dependent on their aggressors, and are therefore more heavily subjected to all kinds of violence and abuse. There is an urgent need for legislation setting out common measures to combat crimes related to child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children, many of them committed online. There is also a need for European rules enabling the effective combating of websites with paedophilic content or promoting paedophilia, along with child pornography websites, and for laws punishing those who use them. Stricter measures are also needed for those committing crimes of sexual exploitation and abuse of children. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child mentions children’s right to full and harmonious development. It also lays down the right to protection against ‘all forms of physical or mental violence, injury and abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse’. We should not allow these rights to remain mere words on the page.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The abuse and exploitation of children and child pornography are unacceptable activities in a free and responsible society. Unfortunately, situations of poverty and underdevelopment in some countries encourage these practices, which are able to proliferate because of new ‘information highways’. This report, drafted by Ms Angelilli, deals with the proposal for a directive of Parliament and the Council on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA. Between 10 and 20% of minors are at risk of being victims of sexual violence. A child victim of sexual violence is scarred for life. The current legislation is obsolete, so it is of crucial importance to adopt a directive which ensures a higher degree of protection for children, both in the EU and elsewhere. I welcome the approval of this report and I hope this directive will be adopted by all the Member States as soon as possible, since any sexual abuse of children is unacceptable and there is an urgent need to put an end to child sex tourism, as well as to impede the abusive exhibition of images of children on the Internet.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Sexual abuse and exploitation of children are horrendous crimes that need to be combated and prevented. This report proposes certain instruments for doing this, some of which are appropriate and positive. However, provisions have been introduced alongside these about which we have major reservations and concerns, such as those enabling access to certain websites to be blocked. Of course, we agree that the circulation of images of child abuse and pornography on the Internet should be rigorously fought and halted, but this can only be done effectively by removing this material at source. The provisions included in this report do not offer full or sufficient assurances that blocking websites – the possibility of which is appearing for the first time in EU legislation, thus setting a precedent – will not open the way for forms of censorship of the Internet and other areas. It is also important to mention that the issue of the sexual exploitation of children cannot be dissociated from these children’s social conditions, as it is known that children from families in poverty face a greater risk of being targeted by this kind of crime. These causes should also be rigorously combated.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) All too often, the crimes of child pornography and sexual abuse of children go unmentioned and are difficult to track down because of the technology that is used. These crimes violate all basic rights and require greater, more focused attention. By implementing thoroughgoing legislation we can set up a robust system to prevent these crimes, including particularly close attention to the Internet, which is often used by unsupervised children of an increasingly young age and represents a dangerous way to exploit and groom children through social networks and unmonitored websites. Much also remains to be done to combat sex tourism, as set out in the declarations of the World Tourism Organisation, by bringing in the best possible regulations on punishing EU citizens who travel to countries where it is easy to have sexual relations with children. In order to facilitate the prosecution of those who commit these crimes, we need to find ways of cooperating with the governments of these countries, which too often deny the serious situation they are tangled up in due to the revenues brought in by such criminal tourism. I voted in favour because I want to see the introduction of a policy which, if it is to be truly effective, must provide a comprehensive approach to prevent and combat these crimes and, not least, to protect victims.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report tackles an important issue: combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, as well as fighting paedophilia. We would highlight the need to prioritise the strengthening and creation of more conditions for prosecuting these crimes. Nonetheless, we believe it is crucial to focus this debate on the victims themselves, in this case children, who have suffered terrible physical and psychological violence, thus making it crucial to monitor the victims and their families throughout their lives. We also have a number of reservations in relation to the standardisation of legislation in this area, which could be a problem for solving these crimes. We would also say that one cannot be permissive or ignore the reality of the sexual exploitation of minors, namely children in disadvantaged socioeconomic situations. As we know, these matters are never random, and questions of class certainly enter into the debate.

  Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D) , in writing. – (SK) Sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography constitute serious violations of fundamental rights, in particular the rights of the child to protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, as stipulated by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Such violations bring child victims long-term physical, mental and social harm, and the mere existence of these reprehensible crimes often undermines confidence in the fundamental values of modern society, in particular those concerning the special protection of children. Although reliable and accurate statistics are not available, studies indicate that a small, yet by no means negligible, number of children in Europe may be victims of sexual attack. The occurrence of certain forms of sexual violence has, moreover, an upward trend, and is disseminated mainly by the use of new technology and the Internet. I am of the opinion that such serious criminal offences require a holistic approach that involves the prosecution of offenders and the protection of child victims, but above all it is necessary to employ all the available means to effectively prevent this serious crime. In the implementation of repressive measures in the fight against such abominations it is absolutely necessary to always and under all circumstances primarily take into account the best interests of the child, which is in accordance with the aforementioned Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This is a delicate and very important subject. The report provides for new crimes that relate in particular to the threats posed by the development of information technology. The directive thus establishes 22 types of crime, while leaving Member States the option to impose harsher punishments. Ensuring that Member States have clear legal obligations on punishing crimes against children is an essential step in creating a Europe that takes more care on this subject. I will therefore be voting in favour.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − The Union must fully realise the dangers that come with new technological developments, particularly ICT and the internet, when talking about sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. The sexual exploitation of children and child pornography has long existed, but a significant increase of cases of sexual exploitation of children, particularly across borders, over the years should point to the gravity of the problem. New, evolutionary developments in communication and information technology facilitate sexual offenders to reach their victims and easily abuse their rights. Sexual predators are also constantly provided with different instruments to buy, produce, distribute, transmit, and supply child pornography pictures and videos across Europe. Child abuse and pornography span the Europe Union and are not limited to individual Member States; therefore, we need a comprehensive pan-European approach that centres around the best interests of the child. I believe that this Directive, if implemented accordingly, will be a valuable legal instrument which will establish minimum rules and criminalise the most serious forms of child sexual abuse. It will make a real difference in covering the prosecution of offenders, strengthening the protection of child victims, and preventing an increase of the phenomenon as well as future crimes against children.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report on the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, including child pornography. It is the second European criminal law legislation to harmonise sanctions and prison sentences for these crimes. After lengthy debates, the final text includes the principle of removing images and material relating to child pornography from the Internet, which is a much more effective method than that of blocking sites showing child abuse, as had previously been envisaged. The Union is arming itself with a veritable arsenal of judicial and penal weapons to combat this form of criminal activity, as well as subsequent offences.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (SV) I voted in favour of the report on the basis of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the fact that the welfare of the child must come first. Child pornography is a cross-border problem that harms children and therefore I support measures to combat it. The technique of blocking websites is certainly not very effective and the websites just reappear somewhere else. However, it is a usable tool. Removing or blocking material on the Internet is, however, a restriction of the freedom of expression and must be done in a legally certain manner. Internet users must be informed of the reason why a site is blocked and how they can appeal against it. It is also important that the EU rules that are introduced do not interfere with Sweden’s work to prevent child pornography. Member States that already have a good system in place for combating child pornography must be allowed to retain it.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because the European Commission is seeking by means of this proposal to make progress in combating sexual abuse and sexual exploitation and the depiction of sexual acts involving persons under the age of 18 years. The proposal assumes that criminal offences in this area will increase, that the development of modern communications will exacerbate this problem and that the regulations in the EU Member States are neither tough enough nor coherent enough. This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes. It also introduces provisions to strengthen the prevention of such crimes and the protection of victims. It is therefore necessary to improve the situation in this area. I also support the provisions under which legal persons would also be punishable.

  Kent Johansson (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) Crimes involving child pornography must be combated forcefully, and I am in favour of the EU taking steps to further strengthen the protection of children. However, the solution is not to be found in blocking Internet sites that may contain criminal material, as such measures involve turning a blind eye to the problem rather than preventing the attacks from taking place. Blocking the websites of private actors can also give rise to huge problems from the point of view of legal certainty. It is therefore good that this report does not focus on blocking as a method, but prescribes other methods instead. I voted in favour of the report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Firstly, I should like to thank Ms Angelilli for her admirable work on this report. The abuse and exploitation of children is a very delicate matter that requires the utmost institutional and legislative rigour. I think that prosecuting and punishing those who commit this type of crime, which is extremely serious, because it is committed against those who are less able than others to defend themselves, must be among the main objectives of a Europe-wide piece of legislation, particularly now, after the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. Today’s report moves towards a complete analysis of the issue, which encounters problems when it touches on some less tangible but more dangerous areas, such as the use of the Internet in child-pornography crimes. Protecting children from this kind of crime must, as the report states, also include education and training for the child after any trauma that the child may have suffered. Bringing together the various aspects of the issue, while managing to involve non-profit organisations working around the world and in Europe, is an excellent way to defeat a crime that we all think of as the epithet of awfulness, since it involves the most vulnerable of people: children.

  Sabine Lösing and Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Sexual crimes against children constitute one of the most abhorrent crimes, and we must do our utmost to prevent them from taking place. This report provides tools to do just that, and I welcome many of the new provisions. The main reason why I could not support this report is because it also introduces provisions which allow for access to certain Internet web sites to be blocked. I wholeheartedly agree that the mass dissemination of images of abuse through the Internet must be stopped; however, this can only be achieved through the removal at source of such material. However, if we want to allow blocking as a complementary measure, we must ensure that the conditions and safeguards for blocking are stringent and in conformity with our fundamental rights. This is particularly important as such provisions are being introduced in EU legislation for the very first time, and therefore set a precedent. However, the current provisions fall short of these standards because they are not stringent enough and may, therefore, pave the way for restricting internet users on a wider scale, thus leading to the censorship of the Internet on the basis of intellectual property rights breaches or other minor offences.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. − (RO) This proposal for a directive comes at the right time given that the number of paedophilia cases has risen alarmingly in recent years. In view of the fact that approximately 20% of perpetrators of sexual offences repeat the offence after conviction, I believe that more severe punishment is required than a few years’ imprisonment, depending on the seriousness of the situation.

For repeat child sex offenders, I believe that we should apply penalties such as chemical castration or a life sentence. Let us not forget that chemical castration is already prescribed in countries such as Denmark, Sweden, the Czech Republic and the United States, and was also introduced in Poland last year. It is our duty to examine and apply harsher penalties to repeat paedophiles at European level too.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution, which says that serious forms of child sexual abuse and sexual exploitation should be subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. This includes, in particular, various forms of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation facilitated by the use of information and communication technologies, such as the online solicitation of children for sexual purposes via social networking websites and chat rooms. The definition of child pornography should also be clarified and brought closer to that contained in international instruments.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children are particularly serious forms of crime and can cause long-term physical, psychological and social harm. It is clear that it is right to take an approach which seeks to address the root causes of the problem with a view to eliminating this crime, the nature of which is changing rapidly, especially with the ongoing progress of technology and its application. In the past, child pornography was limited to physical applications such as the post or photographs. Now, the images can be sent around the world using the Internet, quickly and without cost. The criminal nature of these acts requires strong and robust action. We had a lengthy debate on the issue of blocking and deleting website content.

We need to strike a careful balance between freedom of expression and protecting children. It is incumbent upon the Member States to work with Internet service providers to ensure that children are protected from illegal activity by a system of checks. Member States must firstly delete websites containing or disseminating child pornography or, if this cannot be achieved, block access to these web pages.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. - (IT) It is absolutely essential that serious crimes such as the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are tackled on a global level, through an initiative that provides for criminal action against the perpetrators, protection for victims and combating this phenomenon. I am voting in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − The protection of children from sexual abuse and exploitation should be a priority in all Member States. I voted in favour of this report, which seeks to combat the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children by criminalising any such abuse and exploitation not currently covered by EU legislation.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Child sexual abuse is a heinous crime that demands a strong response. It seriously jeopardises the health and psychosocial development of children and very often has irreversible effects, ruining their lives. People who force a child to take part in sexual acts or to enter prostitution must receive exemplary sentences. The directive that we have just adopted will introduce harsh penalties at EU level for the perpetrators of abuse and people who look at images of child sex abuse on the Internet, which has, moreover, allowed for the development of new types of sexual abuse, such as online grooming for sexual purposes. Those who produce child pornography, but equally those who consume it, will be prosecuted and liable to receive harsh sentences. I also welcome the obligation to remove all child pornographic content on the Internet at its source throughout the Member States. Prevention measures aimed at raising awareness of this scourge and reducing the risk of children becoming victims of sexual exploitation are also necessary, as is the care and protection of children before, during and after a criminal procedure.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This Directive aims to establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes. It defines offences concerning sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, and solicitation of children for sexual purposes and aggravating circumstances thereto, as well as the minimum maximum levels of penalties for the offences. The Directive also defines the rules on seizure and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of such crimes as well as assistance and support for the victims, and preventive intervention programmes and measures. The Directive also defines the measures against websites. This Directive is extremely important and |I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Tougher sanctions against these crimes will only work if we also abolish limitation and prescription periods at the same time. This is doubly important when one realises that sexual abuse can often have a destructive impact on the next generation. Breaking the perpetrator-victim-perpetrator cycles, which can extend over many generations, not only requires comprehensive legal investigation with harsh punishment for the perpetrators, but also more treatment by psychotherapists. We should not overlook the recent rise in so-called virtual child pornography, in other words the depiction of sexual acts on children using computer animations. We must also take significant steps against child prostitution on European soil, for example in regions near the EU’s borders in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ukraine, the Baltic and Poland. These improved measures at EU level to combat the sexual abuse of children are to be welcomed.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to vote in favour of this report since it helps clarify and better regulate the issue of child sexual abuse and child pornography. Indeed, the report brings in the first ever regulations to protect children from the dangers of the Internet, including the heinous act of online grooming, while also setting out tough regulations on those that sell and disseminate child pornography.

The Internet has become the final frontier of paedophilia and is, unfortunately, used increasingly by these loathsome criminals; it was therefore right to provide better regulation on this subject. People who exploit children outside the European Union – by which I mean sex tourism, of course – will also be subject to greater attention and harsher rules. Europe could not stand by and silently watch these crimes, which are often committed by EU citizens in Asian or South American countries. These individuals will find it increasingly difficult to take such trips and will know that they could be prosecuted at any time. We therefore hope that all these measures will help eliminate all kinds of child abuse.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) It is regrettable that the struggle against child sexual abuse and child pornography has not received sufficient attention due to various global problems. Child pornography runs rampant on the anonymous Internet, and unfortunately European law-enforcement bodies have had great difficulty in identifying its distributors, as a result of which they have developed a sense of impunity. Those who sexually abuse children must take into consideration that their actions have extremely serious consequences for the victim and also for themselves, through the administration of justice. I approve of the fact that this report improves the Europe-wide legal framework and also devotes more attention to preventive activities. The creation of a corresponding information service and the training of officials to ensure that they are better able to identify victims or potential victims of sexual abuse are certainly of great importance.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because sexual abuse is a particularly serious form of child abuse.

In order to prevent such crimes and create a safer environment for children in society, it is necessary to create a mechanism for combating sexual abuse against children, the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography and take decisive and effective action at EU level.

It should be noted that EU Member States’ regulations in this area are not tough enough and, moreover, that the incidence of such crimes is constantly growing as a result of the development of modern communications. Consequently, protection for victims and prevention at EU level must be reinforced. The penalties imposed must be effective, proportional to the seriousness of the offence and provide a deterrent. I believe that it is right to provide for criminal liability of legal persons for these crimes.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Minors rarely find the courage to speak about the crimes committed against them. This silence, firstly, encourages criminals to keep offending, secondly, prevents the authorities from acting to eliminate it and, thirdly and most importantly, children continue to be abused, with incalculable consequences on their life, health and personality; at the same time, the consequences of this particular crime clearly affect the child in later life and hence the future of society. Studies into the problem estimate that between 10% and 20% of children have been sexually abused. These figures are terrifying. An approach needs to be chosen and applied that aims to address the underlying causes of the problem in a bid to combat this crime. A society that encourages respect for vulnerable people, such as children, should make a consistent effort to foster a culture in which the sexual abuse and exploitation of children are considered intolerable. This is the spirit of the report and I voted in favour of it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal for a directive, which provides for tougher criminal penalties against people who sexually abuse children or access child pornography on the Internet. This is one of the most despicable crimes in today’s societies and a determined effort is needed to combat it from various converging angles. The rules voted on have been agreed with the EU Council of Ministers, forcing Member States to remove websites with child pornography content, and reinforcing measures to prevent these crimes and protect victims.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. - (IT) The sexual abuse and exploitation of children is a social plague that is not only a serious violation of fundamental rights, but is also characterised by the scant protection and care required for children’s well-being. Technology and breaking down the barriers of distance by using the Internet mean that this phenomenon can creep into daily life more easily, thus allowing this awful phenomenon to grow. In this light, harmonising Member States’ legislation on the sexual abuse and exploitation of children by treating the most serious forms of abuse as crimes is a key way to avoid its spreading further, I am voting in favour to ensure that measures are brought in to protect young victims.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. − (RO) The EU recognises the rights, freedoms and principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which stipulates that, in all actions relating to children, the child's best interests must be the primary consideration. Likewise, the multiannual Stockholm Programme gives a clear priority to combating sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

This Directive aims to establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes. It also aims to introduce provisions to strengthen the prevention of the crime and the protection of its victims. Member States should take appropriate measures, such as education and professional training, to discourage and reduce all forms of sexual exploitation related to the exploitation of children, and to conduct information and awareness-raising campaigns, as well as research and education programmes aimed at raising public awareness and reducing the risk of children becoming victims of sexual exploitation.

Member States should also promote regular training for officials who come into contact with child victims of sexual exploitation, including police officers, aimed at enabling them to identify and deal with victims and potential victims of sexual exploitation.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Sexual exploitation of children and child pornography has, in recent years, come to the forefront of public debate. It is, in fact, a practice which completely stifles the self-determination of abused children and often has a lifelong impact on the individual. Yet demand for these products increases the incidence of abuse, fuelling the illegal trafficking of children and related practices, and contributing to the continuation of a practice which should be entirely eliminated from modern society. Nonetheless, today’s media society makes available a whole range of means, which facilitate international trafficking networks in unprecedented ways. Furthermore, if we understand the EU as an area of freedom, we see that an effective response can only come from a common approach. That is the laudable purpose of this directive, which is at its first reading, and which deserves to be applauded.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of the Angelilli report today represents significant progress in the fight against sexual offences and child pornography. Henceforth, Member States will be able to remove child pornography sites or block access to them in their countries should it prove impossible to remove them. Furthermore, the European Parliament has called, amongst other things, for more severe sentences for paedophiles and those who access child pornography on the Internet. The size of the child pornography market is under-estimated, and this report finally provides a response to the growth in this traffic. We must monitor its future development and therefore this directive will have to be supplemented, so that it adapts to changing circumstances and keeps up with the speed of technological change.

The incredible popularity of social networking websites is proof of this, where children are still victims who can all too easily be reached. I can only welcome this new legislation, but we still need to make considerable progress before we achieve the zero tolerance we need when dealing with sexual offenders. We must make even further progress in our attempts to eradicate these offences and tackle the root of the problem.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The large-scale development of virtual communication media has enabled sex offenders to exchange criminal images and videos more quickly and more anonymously, which I find truly regrettable. Today, it is estimated that between 10% and 20% of children are exposed to the risk of sexual assault, either within their family or during encounters with strangers. The deepening of the internal market and the free movement of persons and goods call for coordinated action on the part of the European Union. Hence I fully support the proposals made in Ms Angelilli’s report, namely: the introduction of minimum measures to protect children throughout the Member States, the cross-border exchange of information on persons convicted of sex offences, the strengthening of penalties, and the creation of support structures for victims. We are facing a large-scale threat, and we had a duty to act. I therefore welcome the adoption of Ms Angelilli’s report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This Directive should be fully complementary with Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims, and replacing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA(9), as some victims of human trafficking have also been child victims of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. Child pornography frequently includes images recording the sexual abuse of children by adults. It may also include images of children involved in sexually explicit conduct, or of their sexual organs, where such images are produced or used for primarily sexual purposes and exploited with or without the child’s knowledge.

Furthermore, the concept of child pornography also covers realistic images of a child, where a child is engaged or depicted as being engaged in sexually explicit conduct, for primarily sexual purposes. In adopting legislation on substantive criminal law, the Union should ensure consistency of this overall legislation in particular with regard to the level of penalties.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) By adopting this text, the European Union has decided to equip itself with a package of clear, effective rules on all crimes against children, combating them, preventing them and protecting against them. Making sex tourism a crime and the new rules that forbid the perpetrators of these offences from working with children are just some of the most important new measures. Bolstering the tools for fighting online child pornography by making online child grooming a crime provides greater certainty of being able to punish these abhorrent crimes.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to figures from the United Nations Children’s Fund, 1 million children are used in the child pornography industry, generating around EUR 20 billion. In view of the vulnerability of children, concrete measures need to be taken against abuse and sexual exploitation, and the protection of children needs to be ensured by national institutions. The effects of ill treatment are often ongoing, and the physical, psychological and social effects are permanent for the victims and their families. As such, I am voting for this report, which extends the legal concept of a child and an adolescent, so that anybody under 18 years of age has the right to be protected from sexual exploitation, as well as the specific use of terms relating to child pornography, child sex tourism and grooming, in order to criminalise such acts. I also wish to mention removal and blocking measures, preferably to extend outside the jurisdiction of the EU, of Internet sites containing abusive images or child pornography, which the Member States must implement. Criminalisation and prevention are just as important as support and assistance for the victim. As such, all taboos and stigmas attached to suffering abuse and ill treatment need to be removed, so that victims are not afraid to report crimes.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the Parliament resolution on the proposal for a directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. The EU recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Knowingly obtaining access to child pornography by means of information and communication technology should be criminalised. To be liable, the person should both intend to enter a webpage where child pornography is available and know that such images can be found there. The intentional nature of the offence may be deduced from the fact that it is recurrent or was committed in return for payment.

Enticement of children for sexual purposes is a threat with specific characteristics in the context of the Internet, as the latter provides unprecedented anonymity to users, thus an opportunity to conceal one’s real identity and personal characteristics, such as age. Member States should consider giving short and long term assistance to child victims. Member States could implement a register of persons convicted of sexual offences, access to which would be subject to limitation in accordance with national constitutional principles and applicable data protection standards.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on this report, with whose approach to combating child sexual abuse I broadly agree.

However, the text that was put to the vote this morning, which is a compromise negotiated with the Council, is not as satisfactory as the initial position of Parliament concerning the definition of criminal offences, preventive measures and guarantees concerning the protection of freedoms on the Internet.

There is one provision, however, which is of particular concern to me: the scope for Member States to block Internet sites and censor images or sites.

In the very sensitive context of attempts by some Member States to control the Internet, this provision sets a dangerous precedent. I cannot vote in favour of it, as I am well aware of the risks of extension and generalisation that may result.

Report: Jean Lambert (A7-0271/2011)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection. The proposal from the Commission for the recast of the original Directive forms part of the move towards a Common European Asylum Policy by 2012. After the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament is now in a position of co-decision. The existing Directive has two key elements: the grounds on which someone qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection, and the content of that protection. It is clear that there are considerable variations in practice between Member States in their implementation of the current Directive. I agree with the rapporteur that there is a need for clarification in the legislative framework - the Directive itself - to provide a clearer framework for the implementation process. I support this proposal, which aims to approximate the two categories of protection more closely and thus to generally refer to beneficiaries of international protection. The proposal also aims to ‘approximate the entitlements of the content of protection more closely’: access to the labour market is perhaps the most significant.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) More than ever before, the EU is now facing the huge challenge of being the destination for massive flows of migrants, to whom it must provide help and refuge.

In order to bring about a Common European Asylum System by 2012, we need to harmonise the rules in place in the Member States as soon as possible. The directive on minimum standards for providing third-country nationals or stateless persons with international protection therefore provides a necessary starting point: it will make it possible to establish common criteria and ensure a uniform and fair minimum standard of treatment for all people who turn to one of the Member States for protection after fleeing their country of origin or provenance, in order to escape persecution on grounds of race, religion, politics, nationality or gender.

We need to harmonise international protection measures and ensure that those seeking protection have access to instruments like ‘frontloading’ – a rapid analysis of the relevant factors involved in getting protection and information, in a language that they seem to understand reasonably well.

Particular care must be taken over children, whose best interests must be protected. In particular, unaccompanied children must be sure that family reunification searches will be begun and, where possible, brought to fruition.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The definition of common criteria for the identification of persons in need of international protection is consistent with the introduction of a European asylum policy by 2012. I voted in favour of the Lambert report to ensure that these eligibility criteria and the content of the protection granted are made clear.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that the directive on the beneficiaries of international protection must continue to be improved, and this is the key objective of this report. Through observing the application of the directive in the Member States, it has become clear that its application varies significantly, and although some of the deficiencies identified can be overcome by promoting closer cooperation between the Member States, there is still a need for more clarity in the legal framework. The most important amendment tabled by the European Parliament is to better harmonise the two different categories of protection recipients which have different entitlements relating to the type of protection. In the areas of social welfare, integration measures and residence permits, Member States will in future still be able to apply different regimes to people in these two protection categories. The amendments to the directive are also aimed at defining more clearly the concept of the best interests of the child, by providing a set of basic principles. Another important issue addressed by the amendments which arose when the document was being debated related to the actors of protection. There was a strongly held view in the European Parliament that only states can be viewed as actors of protection because international bodies do not have the attributes of a state.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. - (CS) I support the greater approximation of the two categories of protection – refugee status and subsidiary protection – and thus the general designation of ‘beneficiaries of international protection’. This will act to remind implementing authorities that the two categories of protection are complementary. Subsidiary protection is not of less importance for individuals at risk of serious harm if they return to their country of origin. There will also be greater approximation of the entitlements forming the content of protection, of which access to the labour market is clearly the most important. Most Member States already make little distinction between these two groups.

However, a difference in treatment will still remain possible in three areas: social welfare, integration measures and residence permits. Some progress was made on the latter, where a renewal after one year for those with subsidiary protection must be of at least two years duration. Few Member States currently differentiate. The European Parliament took the view that this was important for integration and to give a sense of greater stability to the individual.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Stockholm Programme has reiterated its commitment to the objective of establishing by 2012 a common area of protection and solidarity, based on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted international protection. As such, it is important to confirm the principles underlying this directive, which is one of the five key EU legislative instruments for creating a Common European Asylum System, as well as to seek a higher level of approximation of rules on the recognition and content of international protection, namely by applying clearer and more effective rules. I am therefore voting for this report which, while not including any substantive amendments to this directive, is limited to a straightforward codification of the provisions of the existing texts, and makes small modifications aiming to respond to the shortcomings detected in the implementation of this directive. I would stress the need for this directive’s implementation to be evaluated at regular intervals by the Member States, taking particular account of changes to their international obligations regarding non-refoulement, of changes to the labour markets in the Member States and of developing common basic principles for integration.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I support the proposal for a directive on the international protection of third-country nationals or stateless persons. There are currently considerable disparities between one Member State and another concerning the grant of international protection. We must therefore take further measures, consisting of a serious of substantial amendments to Directive 2004/83/EC, in order to clarify the minimum standards on qualification for refugee status or status as a person requiring international protection. The objective of this Directive is to lay down common criteria for the identification of persons genuinely in need of protection and to ensure a minimum level of benefits to help such persons.

I should personally like to stress the importance of assessing the best interests of the child, and therefore of taking due account of the principle of family unity and the minor’s well-being and social development. I believe, moreover, that it is necessary to ensure that asylum seekers have access to health care, including both physical and mental health care. I therefore consider it essential to introduce common definitions and criteria in order to guide Member States’ competent national bodies in the application of the Geneva Convention.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. − (RO) We have wasted two years because of the inability or disinterest of the European Council in cooperating towards the implementation of a sustainable European programme for refugees. I note with regret that this is not the only debate of this session addressing the lack of cooperation and action on the part of the Council. In this case, there is a risk that if we do not find a solution by the end of the year, the use of the European Refugee Fund, which is due to expire in 2013, will be under threat.

I wish to draw the Council’s attention to the fact that its failure to apply the emergency mechanism provided for in the codecision procedure, as proposed by Parliament, has already had a major negative impact, given that the EU is facing, particularly this year, wave after wave of refugees following the regime changes in Arab countries. Of the estimated 200 000 refugees to be resettled in third countries each year, half are received by countries on the American continent, while in the EU only 10 states are involved, taking only 4 500 refugees each year.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL), in writing. − The GUE group abstained from voting on the Qualification Directive because we strongly protest against the splitting up of the Asylum Package. We do not want to vote on single directives before substantial progress is made on all files, and do not support the pick-and-choose behaviour of the Council towards the Package. We do, however, want to highlight the major improvements which the rapporteur, Ms Lambert, was able to ensure in the final version, including gender identity as grounds for asylum, respect for family unity and better protection of the interests of the child.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the reform and improvement of the European Asylum System is a priority for the EU, particularly in the context of the problems caused by recent events in the southern Mediterranean. The recast of the Directive on the qualification for international protection is very important and necessary, but it should be borne in mind that the whole asylum package must be adopted by the end of 2012. The most important aspect of the reform of the asylum system will be the improvement of solidarity between Member States in dealing with people who seek protection from the EU. European countries must prove that they are capable of reviving this spirit of solidarity both for the benefit of their own citizens and of those who need their protection.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution, as it argues that all legal proceedings against senior officials of the current or previous Ukrainian Government must be carried out in accordance with European rules on equity, impartiality, transparency and independence. I believe that strengthening the rule of law and carrying out internal reforms involving credible efforts to combat corruption are essential for strengthening EU-Ukrainian relations and for consolidating democracy in Ukraine.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) A European Union that does not seek to be Fortress Europe but rather a community of values cannot but be sensitive to the conditions and circumstances of those seeking protection within its borders, as they are the victims of conflicts and political persecution every day. Today the EU is a region in which human rights, individual freedoms and democracy are guaranteed to all those living here by the authorities of the Member States of which it is comprised. Ever since the issue of refugees has begun to be raised, the extent and definition of the concept have been the subject of controversy. That situation continues today. I agree with European efforts to identify the minimum conditions to be met by those seeking refuge in the Union, but I would like to point out the risks of them being too broad, which could give rise to fraud and abuse. Likewise, I do not believe that Member States facing major tensions in their social security systems are in a position to provide generous social benefits to all those that apply, as these run the risk of being or becoming unaffordable.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Lambert, tables a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection granted, based on a Commission proposal which is a recast version of the original Directive 2004/83/EC. The European Union, aware of the political problems of many non-democratic countries where many people are fighting for the right to freedom, aims to implement a common asylum policy since, in spite of all the support provided by the European Asylum Support Office, practices for receiving refugees vary from Member State to Member State. I welcome the adoption of this report, which enables the establishment of a more concrete legislative framework, so that all refugees can enjoy the same treatment in all Member States, especially as regards social security, integration measures, and protection measures when necessary, as well as residence permits. The EU must continue to serve as an example of freedom, tolerance and respect for human rights.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report on the conditions to be met by third country nationals or stateless persons in order to be able to benefit from international protection focuses on the important and, unfortunately, very topical issue of refugees. This is an area that should be treated with the utmost care and should promote full respect for human dignity, especially when we are talking about refugees who have already been beset by extremely harsh situations in their countries of origin. They often come from warzones, as in the recent example of Libya, a country now experiencing a tragic situation in this regard, exacerbated by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation aggression and the bombing of the country by this warlike organisation, with the support of the EU. However, we do not agree with the policies and proposals set out in this report. We believe that this issue of protection and asylum should fully respect the sovereignty of the Member States, and that it should be they that set the conditions of their own asylum policies, without prejudice to any agreements that they may decide to make in the exercise of that sovereignty.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report on international protection focuses on the subject of refugees, who must be dealt with the highest degree of care and respect for human dignity, especially refugees who have suffered difficult circumstances, in many cases coming from warzones, such as the recent example of Libya. Nonetheless, we would stress the importance of the Member States themselves addressing these issues of protection and asylum. Given that this issue is inextricably linked to the sovereignty of the Member States, the individual countries should be able to set their own conditions relating to asylum policy.

  Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D) , in writing. – (SK) The proposal from the Commission for the recast of the original Directive 2004/83/EC forms part of the move towards a Common European Asylum Policy by 2012. For the original Directive the European Parliament had only consultative powers. Now, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament is in a position of codecision. The existing Directive has two key elements: the grounds on which someone qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection and the content of that protection in terms of residence, employment and social rights within the Member State responsible for protection. A fundamental change proposed here is to approximate these two categories of protection more closely. The main objective is, on the one hand, to ensure that Member States apply common criteria for the identification of persons genuinely in need of international protection, and, on the other hand, to ensure that a minimum level of benefits is available for these persons in all Member States. In order to enhance the effective exercise of the rights and benefits that have been laid down, it is necessary to take into account at all costs their specific needs and the particular integration challenges with which they are confronted. Efforts should also be made, I believe, to address the problem that relates to the financial constraints that in their own way prevent these persons from gaining access to employment-related educational opportunities and vocational training.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) This directive on the qualification and status of third country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection constitutes a further worsening of immigration policy in Europe. The cases that may trigger entitlement to such protection, which include alleged cases of persecution based on ‘gender identity’ or sexual orientation, are increasing in number. A few years ago, Mr Sarkozy proposed that all the world’s abused women should seek refuge in France. He dreamt about it – Europe is doing it! Because of the way in which women are treated in the majority of countries that have based their laws on Sharia, that is a lot of people. The text also broadens the definition of the family entitled to join applicants for international protection as well as the rights – to a social life, to housing, to work, etc. – to which these people are entitled.

In short, this is a fantastic invitation to use the asylum application as a means to migrate to Europe. I am not saying that all applications will be accepted. On the contrary, an influx of unfounded or opportunistic applications will have the immediate effect of swamping genuine applications for refuge against political persecution and delaying their successful outcome. Of one thing you can be sure – refused applicants will stay here illegally!

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because an important change proposed here is to approximate the two categories of protection more closely and thus to generally refer to beneficiaries of international protection. This will act to remind implementing authorities that the two categories of protection are complementary: subsidiary protection is no less important for individuals at risk of serious harm if they return to their country of origin. The proposal also aims to approximate the entitlements of the content of protection more closely, of which access to the labour market is perhaps the most significant. The majority of Member States already make little difference between the two groups. However, a difference in treatment will still remain possible in three areas: social welfare, integration measures and residence permits − although some progress was made on the latter (where a renewal after one year for those with subsidiary protection must be of at least two years duration, few Member States currently differentiate). The European Parliament took the view that this was important for integration and to give a sense of greater stability to the individual.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I cast my vote in favour of the report by Ms Lambert because I think we need to see convergence on the rules safeguarding refugees and persons requiring international protection. These two categories are currently still separate, which causes problems in identifying the criteria for establishing who is in genuine need of protection. It is therefore crucial, I think, to build on Directive 2004/83/EC and ensure that aid for third-country nationals or stateless persons is prompt and even better coordinated between Member States. This must be achieved through a balanced reconciliation of interests which guarantees the protection of fundamental human rights, along with the inevitable safety and public-order requirements. In particular, I think special attention should be paid to the issues regarding children. In essence, the already complex problems faced by stateless persons in need of refugee status are intensified when it comes to children, meaning that greater care needs to be taken in the preparation and implementation of legislation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution on the proposal from the Commission for a recasting of Directive 2004/83/EC which forms part of the move towards a Common European Asylum Policy by 2012. The existing Directive has two key elements: the grounds on which someone qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection and the content of that protection in terms of residence, employment and social rights within the Member State responsible for protection. An important change proposed here is to approximate the two categories of protection more closely and thus to refer generally to beneficiaries of international protection.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The proposal we are voting on forms part of the move towards a Common European Asylum Policy by 2012. We welcome the key elements of the new Directive, namely the grounds on which someone qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection and the content of that protection in terms of residence, employment and social rights within the Member State responsible for protection. Unfortunately, to this day we continue to record considerable discrepancies between Member States in their application of the existing rules, which has often resulted in wide variation in recognition rates, and has encouraged secondary movements of applicants. Some of the disparities can be dealt with only through improved cooperation with the new European Asylum Support Office.

An important change, finally, is that aimed at approximating the two categories of protection more closely, thus generally to refer to beneficiaries of international protection. This will act to remind implementing authorities that the two categories of protection are complementary: subsidiary protection is not of less importance for individuals at risk of serious harm if they return to their country of origin.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Although we didn’t agree to the splitting of the vote on this directive from the vote on the five other remaining instruments (Dublin II, Eurodac, Reception conditions, Procedures and Resettlement) because the new wave of instruments on asylum were basically treated together up to now in order to have a stronger position in the negotiation with the other EU institutions, we have voted in favour of this directive because it implies an increase in the protection afforded to asylum seekers and a step in the right direction for many vulnerable people. We consider it particularly important that the text in question aims to approximate the protection given to refugees, on one hand, and to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand. This will act to remind implementing authorities in the Member States that the two categories of protection are complementary: subsidiary protection is not of less importance for those at risk of serious harm if they return to their country of origin.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Lambert. I agree with her point on the importance of subsidiary protection for individuals at risk of serious harm if they return to their country of origin.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report expands on some of the improvements proposed by the Commission regarding the conditions under which a victim can obtain international protection within the European Union. I welcome this. However, the fact remains that this report reintroduces unacceptable discrimination between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in the area of social assistance and the granting of residence permits. I abstained, on account of the improvements made, but I condemn these setbacks.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The directive that we have just adopted is a first step towards a common asylum policy by 2012. It should offer more certainty to beneficiaries of international protection and make matters clearer for Member States. The alignment of the rights of refugees with those of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection with regard to access to employment, vocational training and health care is an important step towards a fairer, more human approach to individuals who are at risk of serious harm if they return to their country of origin. Progress has also been made with regard to issues arising from an applicant’s gender, including gender identity and sexual orientation, which may be related to certain legal traditions and customs, resulting in, for example, genital mutilation, forced sterilisation or forced abortion. The best interests of the child, the principle of family unity, and the minor’s well-being, social development, safety and views should be key considerations for the Member States when they implement the directive. I hope that today’s vote will give a positive boost to the negotiations on the other issues in the asylum package.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This Directive forms part of the so-called Asylum Package and is the first Directive of the package to be put to the vote. The Directive recast defines and modifies the minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection granted. The main issues to be recast were the definition of family members, the best interest of the child, acceptable actors of protection (internal and international), grounds of persecution (including gender identity and sexual orientation), residence permits and social assistance. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) We should not broaden the interpretation of the term ‘family’ when we come to revise the status of third country nationals. We have seen all too clearly in the past how handling this term too loosely can result in a tidal wave of family members seeking asylum. There are already large numbers of people who have crossed our borders illegally, although they have no entitlement to asylum under the Geneva Convention. If someone is brazen enough and remains in hiding for long enough, their status will be legalised at some stage. That is why countless lawyers from ‘asylum aid organisations’ fight even the most hopeless cases, dragging them out as long as possible and wasting years of asylum seekers’ lives with false hopes. The aim should not be to have a European asylum policy in which people are persuaded of good prospects of gaining asylum, while the legal profession mines a rich seam of work at the expense of the asylum seekers. Instead, the interests of Europe must be the primary focus when it comes to the asylum question. The directive should follow the Danish model by applying stringent principles, instead of opening the door even further to unbridled mass immigration from all over the world. I therefore voted against this proposal.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour. I believe that a suitable compromise on the amendments to the directive was reached in the trialogues. It was necessary to clarify certain elements of the directive in order to eliminate the ambiguity of the directive’s provisions which led to their being applied differently across the Member States. The rapporteur has successfully realised many of the adaptations planned and I would like to congratulate her on this.

The EU has set itself the goal of establishing a common area of protection and solidarity by 2012 based on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted international protection. The so-called Qualifications Directive is one of five basic legal acts which determine the first stage of the establishment of a common European asylum system (CEAS). Clearly, this area can only be made more effective by acting at European Union level, but I believe that it is necessary to leave the Member States with measures they can use to deter, detect and defend themselves from possible cases of abuse of the European asylum system.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution because the provisions of this directive will ensure a common procedure for granting asylum and will create a uniform system of protection.

A high and consistent level of assistance will be guaranteed for third-country nationals or stateless persons. These persons will also be offered more opportunities in the areas of vocational training, employment, integration measures and housing. Implementation of the measures provided for in the directive will create favourable conditions to enable people to be integrated into society and ensure that they have a greater sense of stability.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing minimum standards for conditions to be met by third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, and relates to the content of the protection granted. The revision of this directive has already been discussed in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon, under the ordinary legislative procedure – previously the codecision procedure – and is an important aspect of moving towards a Common European Asylum Policy by 2012. The disparities currently existing between Member States’ implementation of EU standards mean there is a need for clarification of the legislative framework – the directive itself – in order to establish a clearer and more rigorous framework for the implementation process. I therefore voted for the report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Following the Commission’s recast of the original Directive 2004/83/EC, the European framework on asylum and international protection is shown to contain significant differences between Member States. This leads on the whole to wide variation in recognition rates, given the considerable variations in practice in their implementation of the current Directive. I voted in favour so that some of the disparities can be dealt with through better cooperation.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − This Directive is essential to ensure a high standard of protection for people who suffer violence in their countries of origin. There are large differences between the Member States in terms of the number of people who are granted refugee status. Indeed, Ireland is among the Member States with the lowest levels of recognition rates in Europe, with 1 575 out of 1 600 applications rejected at first instance in 2010. We must do all we can to ensure that people have the same access to protection wherever they are in Europe; that, wherever people are at risk of indiscriminate violence, where they cannot return home because of a legitimate fear of persecution, our Member States will offer them protection.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The directive currently being debated, on minimum standards for conditions to be met by third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, and the content of the protection granted, is emerging as the recasting of Directive 2004/83/EC. Parliament’s different levels of intervention in the two situations should be stressed, however. While its competence was merely advisory to begin with, since the Treaty of Lisbon it has been able to act in codecision on these matters. On highly sensitive political issues, there is a need to guarantee greater harmony between the activities of the different Member States when granting international protection. There is also justification for adopting measures enabling the integration of those granted protection in the EU, encouraging the conditions for their access to the labour market right from the outset. It is also important to highlight the role of the Member States as the principal donors of aid. Since these points are dealt with in the proposal, I voted in favour.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union, as the cradle of human rights and a land of asylum, had a duty to establish a coordinated policy on the reception of third-country nationals and stateless persons. It was therefore necessary to review Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection. The report drafted by Jean Lambert, which I welcome, refers to the compromise reached following lengthy interinstitutional negotiations. It contains some crucial advances with regard to the grounds on which an individual is eligible to be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection and to the content of that protection within the territory of the Member State responsible in terms of residence permits, employment and access to social security. In this regard, I particularly welcome the inclusion of gender identity and legal traditions and customs among the reasons for which an individual may be persecuted. I therefore welcome the vote on this first text, which has been adopted as part of the asylum package.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The proposal from the Commission for the recasting of the original Directive 2004/83/EC forms part of the move towards a Common European Asylum Policy by 2012. In the case of the original Directive, the European Parliament was only consulted. Now, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament is in a position of co-decision. The proposal now being put to plenary is the result of six informal trilogues, hopefully resulting in a first reading agreement. The existing Directive has two key elements: the grounds on which someone qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection and the content of that protection in terms of residence, employment and social rights within the Member State responsible for protection. The Commission brought forward the recasting proposal (Directive COM(2009) 551 final 2) as a result of the required review of the earlier Directive and developing jurisprudence. It is clear that there are considerable variations in practice between Member States in their implementation of the current Directive. This leads to wide variation in recognition rates overall and risks the continuation of secondary movements of applicants.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This text is part of the European framework for the establishment of a common asylum policy by 2012. We need to move beyond the current distinction between refugee status and subsidiary-protection status, re-examining the previous Directive and the jurisprudence deriving from it. There are, in fact, too many differences between the Member States in terms of the practical implementation of the current Directive, which leads to wide variation in so-called ‘recognition rates’.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recast directive aims to set out a uniform basis for dealing with cases of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection, in relation to the conditions that have to be met for them to benefit from international protection. This amendment is part of the EU’s legislative work towards a Common European Asylum Policy. As such, the purpose of the recast directive is to adopt a common definition of the criteria to be fulfilled in order to benefit from international protection, and to ensure common minimum levels of social benefits in the Member States, especially in terms of social security, access to jobs and health care, integration measures, and residence permits. In addition, reasons for persecution have been broadened to include issues of gender, gender identity and the care of unaccompanied minors. With regard to actors of protection in which the state functions as the main actor, Parliament is imposing more stringent requirements for non-state actors, should they wish to be recognised as agents of protection. Solidarity, which is an integral value of the EU, should not only be practised within the borders of the Member States. I therefore believe that the adoption of this report is an important step towards creating a true European area of asylum and protection.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Ms Lambert’s report on the recognition of third country nationals and stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection status is a huge improvement over the situation faced by asylum seekers today, because it aims to harmonise practices in the Member States by setting common criteria for their recognition. It also defines the content of such protection and, not a moment too soon, recognises a minimum level of benefits and rights. Some elements in the report which are particularly encouraging concern respect for the principle of family unity, the best interests of the child and gender identity as factors when evaluating grounds for deportation. It was on account of these elements that I voted in favour of the report; however, I cannot but express my serious opposition to the fact that it has been divorced from the asylum package. This very important endeavour comprises six legislative proposals that must be addressed and voted on as a package. Let us hope that the outstanding proposals will also progress in the same proper direction, because otherwise the effective asylum package that we have been working on for years will be in jeopardy.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. − I, together with my Conservative colleagues, abstained from voting on the Lambert Report. The report amends a 2004 EU Directive on asylum policy. The UK Government has rightly chosen to opt out of the revised Directive, so that it will not apply to the UK. The Directive will make it more difficult for Member States to refuse asylum claims and could lead to further abuse of the asylum system through a broadening of the definition of the family, with respect to family reunions. I have always said that immigration and asylum policy must remain a UK Government competency, and I strongly oppose any move towards a one-size-fits-all EU immigration and asylum policy. I am happy that the UK has opted-out of the revised Directive and therefore I abstained.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) Directive 2004/83/EC for a joint European asylum policy by 2012 has been implemented in different ways and, above all, with varying degrees of flexibility, so that we now need clear remedial action in order to clear up irreconcilable differences. I have voted in favour.

Motion for a resolution B7-0537/2011

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as I believe the European legal framework already allows many airlines to transfer passenger name record data.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Issues relating to the handling and transfer of personal data are always particularly complex due to the many human rights and security issues that they raise. The attacks that took place on 11 September 2001 laid bare the weaknesses in airport security systems and have led to an understanding, shared by most democratic countries and governments, that there are, in fact, limits to privacy and to the inviolability of personal data, and that this is justified solely in situations in which the safety and lives of others may be at risk. Australia upholds the rule of law, merits the respect of all the EU Member States, and has inherited our shared tradition of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Like all legal instruments, the agreement could be improved in the future, but I do not believe that the way in which it is formulated at present justifies submitting it to the Court of Justice. I would, however, recommend caution and restraint in the use of this kind of procedure, which cannot and must not be trivialised nor misappropriated by extreme agendas.

  Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) A European legal framework allowing airlines to transfer passengers’ passenger name record (PNR) data was established by Council Decision 2008/651/CFSP/JHA of 30 June 2008 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of an Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of European Union-sourced passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. The agreement was applied provisionally as of 30 June 2008 and only in 17 EU Member States, as the requisite unanimity could not be secured in the Council on the conclusion of the Agreement. On 15 February 2010 the Council requested the European Parliament's consent to a new PNR agreement with Australia. The European Parliament adopted a resolution to postpone the vote on this request for consent, which delayed the conclusion of the Agreement and led to the Commission and Australia opening new negotiations in January 2011. The clear purpose of the Agreement is to lay down conditions in accordance with which PNR data may be transferred and used and the method for the protection of this data. There is however legal uncertainty as to whether the draft Agreement complies with EU data protection legislation and thus as to whether it is compatible with the Treaties in this respect. The European Parliament therefore seeks an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility of the Agreement in question with the Treaties.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this request for an opinion of the Court of Justice on the compatibility of the EU-Australia PNR Agreement with the Treaties as I believe the legal position is clear.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I support the initiative of seeking an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement between the European Union and Australia. Legal uncertainty remains as to the conditions under which PNR data may be transferred and used, and how data will be protected.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left was the only group with enough of a democratic conscience to seek an opinion from the European Union Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of EU-sourced Passenger Name Record (PNR) data. If the Court happens to deliver a favourable opinion on this agreement, we will have an idea of what is left of our fundamental freedoms in the European Union. I voted in favour of this positive report.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution because it is right to seek an opinion of the Court of Justice on this matter given that there is legal uncertainty concerning the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

Above all, in order for it to be possible for the agreement to be properly implemented in both the EU and Australia, it must be ensured that its provisions, particularly those relating to passenger data, meet the requirements of EU data protection legislation and are compatible with the provisions of the EU Treaties.

It is vital that the agreement should lay down and apply strict conditions as to when PNR data may be transferred and used, including conditions regulating data protection. It must also be ensured that there is legal certainty for air carriers, passengers and data protection bodies and, at the same time, that the protection of citizens’ privacy and physical safety is guaranteed.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this resolution, as I believe it is necessary and useful to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of EU-sourced Passenger Name Record data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The agreement between the EU and Australia – compare with the explanation of vote – raises some extremely delicate issues. Indeed, data protection constitutes one of the biggest challenges to the law today. The possibility of storing information and, using computer software, of data being processed in unprecedented ways suggests the beginning of new ways of violating individuals’ privacy. However, it does not seem sufficient in this context to necessitate the intervention of the Court of Justice to assess the agreement’s compatibility with the Treaties. In fact, its involvement would not appear to be opportune in this case, given, on the one hand, protection efforts already made by Parliament and, on the other, the inevitable delays that would result from the Court of Justice’s intervention. I voted against for these reasons.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Although we lost (motion was not adopted) we felt the following was necessary: 1. Takes the view that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the draft Agreement complies with EU data protection legislation and thus as to whether it is compatible with the Treaties in this respect; questions, further, the choice of legal basis, i.e. Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU (police and judicial cooperation), and not Article 16 TFEU (data protection); and thus, 2. Decides to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility of the Agreement with the Treaties.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The purpose of the motion for a resolution tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left is to seek the opinion of the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of EU-sourced Passenger Name Record data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. The basis for such a request is the alleged legal uncertainty as to whether the draft agreement complies with EU data protection legislation, as well as supposed doubts concerning the choice of its legal basis. However, I do not believe that such reasons actually remain, so I voted against the motion for a resolution, along with the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), to which I belong.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) In view of the continued misgivings in relation to the passing on and processing of PNR (Passenger Name Record) data, the present draft agreement with Australia should be submitted to the European Court of Justice, so that it can verify its compatibility with EU law, in particular with EU data protection standards.

Recommendation: Sophia in't Veld (A7-0364/2011)

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Despite the improvements and lengthy negotiations, this agreement is still unsatisfactory. Not all the criteria allowing for the protection of data have been met, and one is entitled to have some concerns. The European Commission has failed to show why the mass collection of data is necessary and to request the opinion of the Fundamental Rights Agency on this agreement. I also regret the fact that the legal basis is not that of data protection, when this is the purpose of the agreement. For these reasons I voted against during the vote in plenary.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is very important to reach an agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers. PNR is a system for the collection, processing and transfer of data, operational with regard to travel by plane or other means of public transport, whereby passenger data is registered when a carrier’s tickets are sold, reservations are made and passengers are checked-in. The agreement currently in force is based on Australian border protection legislation, and one of the main objectives of this agreement between the EU and Australia would therefore be to adapt the transfer of passenger data to laws on the protection of personal data in force in Europe. The conclusion of this agreement would not only facilitate the transfer of passenger data for carriers, but would also centralise the analysis of PNR data and guarantee the protection of passengers’ data.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This agreement should replace the 2008 provisional one, which was only applied in 17 Member States, and which established a European legal framework on the conditions for the transfer of data contained in the Passenger Name Record (PNR) by airlines to the Australian customs services. I am in favour of this agreement as it follows the EU’s general approach to the transfer of PNR data to third countries. The criteria set out by Parliament have been satisfactorily met: the purpose has been clearly and strictly limited; the method of data transfer is ‘push’ only; the use of sensitive data has been explicitly ruled out; and the public has the right to administrative and judicial redress in Australia, and safeguards concerning access, rectification, erasure and data security. I agree with the rapporteur when she says that the agreement could have gone further and that there are still some concerns, but the main objective has been achieved: seeking to ensure that any transfer of data from the EU can only take place if it fully respects EU data protection standards. This agreement therefore seems to be a success, and I hope that it can serve as an inspiration for the next agreement, to be concluded with the US.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this important report by Ms in’t Veld, which not only covers the question of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, but also constitutes a step towards an integrated and coherent strategy on aviation safety generally. Nowadays, the prevention of possible terrorist attacks is still a priority for air transport, and in this area there is still a great deal that we must do. That is why it is important that the transfer of sensitive data between Europe and Australia is effective in preventing transnational crime without placing an excessive burden on passengers.

To this end, I particularly welcome the calls for the use of regulations appropriate for their protection and guarantees on the protection of health and passengers’ rights in general. In future, due to our daily commitment, these agreements must not be recognised solely through law, but must be of irrevocable worth for the safety of society around the world.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. − (RO) The agreement is necessary to strengthen cooperation between the EU and Australia against terrorism, provided that citizens’ rights and the rule of law are respected. This common framework reflects Parliament’s requirements as expressed in its resolution of 5 May 2010 and the request that the agreement be re-negotiated with a view to protecting fundamental rights and ensuring respect for the privacy of European citizens in compliance with relevant EU norms.

I appreciate the fact that the re-negotiated agreement contains several new safeguards on the transfer and processing of PNR data.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this agreement with Australia on the Passenger Name Record data of air carriers because I believe that it is satisfactory and is streets ahead of previous agreements of this type. Positive and fundamental elements are the fact that it is in principle prohibited to automatically process data and that it is ensured that administrative and judicial remedies against possible abuse exist. Some aspects remain problematic, in particular the retention period for PNR data of 5.5 years and the fact that the transfer of data to third countries will be possible without explicit EU agreement.

These shortcomings should be considered in future PNR agreements with third countries, in particular those currently being negotiated with the United States and Canada.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the recommendation on the agreement between the EU and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, as I believe it includes provisions necessary to protect fundamental rights and ensure respect for the privacy of EU citizens. However, some of the criteria have not been met in full, so some concerns remain. In view of this, I welcome the commitment made by the Commission to table proposals for the suspension or termination of the agreement on Parliament’s request.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Issues relating to the handling and transfer of personal data are always especially complex due to the many human rights and security issues that they raise. The attacks that took place on 11 September 2001 laid bare the weaknesses in airport security systems and have led to an understanding, shared by most democratic countries and governments, that there are, in fact, limits to privacy and to the inviolability of personal data, and that this is justified solely in situations in which the safety and lives of others may be at risk. The criticisms of the majority’s understanding of this by some sectors seeking to assert the primacy of individual privacy over collective security are well known. However, their arguments are not enough to convince people boarding aeroplanes, who, for the most part, do not mind sharing their personal data, since they know that they are limiting the terrorists’ impunity and ability to act by doing so. The agreement between the EU and Australia seeks to achieve a reasonable balance between the rights and interests in question.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to third countries has been the subject of increasing attention from airport authorities, especially since the air attacks of 11 September 2001. What is at stake is information such as names, addresses, passport numbers, credit card details and travel itineraries. This recommendation focuses on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of EU-sourced PNR data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. This agreement stems from the need to adapt European legislation to Australian legislation and must come under the codecision procedure laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. Following negotiations that began in January 2011 between the Commission and Australia, on 18 May 2011 the latter sent a recommendation to the Council to conclude and sign the agreement, which took place on 29 September 2011. In view of this, I welcome this further step forward in EU-Australia relations, which will protect the European public.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This EU-Australia agreement on processing and sharing Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by airlines is taking on dangerous and disturbing dimensions. It slots straight into a security policy based on the claim to be fighting terrorism. As we know, many paths have been trodden in the name of this ‘crusade’, which threatens fundamental rights, freedoms and safeguards, as well as core democratic values. This report follows this path on the grounds of trying to regulate the exchange and sharing of data, instead of sending a clear signal that it rejects this wave of security and valuing the protection of the public’s data. Reference is made to the sovereignty of third countries as a way of justifying data sharing, but this is nothing more than demagoguery on the part of an EU that is jeopardising that very sovereignty through its various sectoral policies, particularly in economic terms. It is significant and revealing that a majority in Parliament has rejected a proposal by our group that the legality of the agreement be considered by the Court of Justice. This confirms the pertinence of the doubts emerging about its very legality. We do not accept exchanging freedom for security because, in the end, we will lose both. We advocate a more secure society with broad democratic rights and freedoms.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) There is a dangerous edge to the report on the EU-Australia agreement on airlines handling and sharing passenger name record data, as it forms part of a security policy centred on the so-called war against terror and, as we are aware, freedoms, guarantees and democratic values are under threat. The report uses the measures set out and the assessment of the agreement between the EU and Australia as justification, on the basis of the assumption that the countries will be able to and will continue to demand any data that they deem necessary, so there should ideally be an attempt to regulate this exchanging and sharing of information. We would also stress the reference to the sovereignty of third countries as a way of justifying information sharing. This demagogical line of argument by the EU once again reveals its true nature. We regret that the issue of sovereignty is not dealt with robustly when we are talking about countries’ economic sovereignty. Sharing information constitutes a key means of opening the doors to the aforementioned abuses. We advocate the need to combat all forms of crime, but this must be done, first and foremost, at source and through prevention. We do not accept any exchange of freedom for more security because, in the end, we will lose both.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Australian law allows the Australian customs authority to demand that every airline flying to and from Australia give them electronic access to passenger name record (PNR) data prior to flights into or out of Australia. The aim of this procedure is to provide PNR data before arrival to allow the Australian customs authorities to carry out effective passenger risk assessments and facilitate travel. These measures enhance Australian security in accordance with its anti-terror policy and its efforts to combat other major crimes and serve to strengthen international police and judicial cooperation between Australia and Europe. Initially, in May 2010, the European Parliament decided to postpone the vote to give its consent to the agreement, but recently decided to renegotiate the agreement and set out its criteria for giving its consent to agreements with third countries on the transfer of PNR data. It has assessed the new draft PNR agreement between the EU and Australia and concluded that many of the requested criteria have been fulfilled to a satisfactory level, and therefore gives its consent to the agreement.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this agreement, which includes some of the priority issues that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have defended continuously throughout the negotiations. Admittedly, there is still some concern over the choice of legal base (Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding data protection, which should have been given priority over the article on police cooperation), and also on the storage period (five and a half years, which is still excessive given that there is no justification as regards proportionality or the need to store data long term). However, the terms of this agreement are truly a step in the right direction for avoiding the abusive use of the passenger name record (PNR) data of European nationals. It will only be possible to use this data for the sole purposes of combating terrorism and preventing serious international crime. Individuals will have the right to access, modify and delete the data, and to seek an administrative or legal review. In short, this agreement includes a number of guarantees that ensure a good level of protection for European citizens, and I hope it will serve as a model for ongoing negotiations over the agreement with the United States, for which the terms agreed on so far are still highly questionable.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) The European Union is negotiating three international agreements, with Australia, Canada and the US, on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data. PNR data is provided by passengers, collected by air carriers and used for their ticketing, reservation, and check-in systems. Given its commercial nature, such data contains several types of information, ranging from names, addresses, passport numbers, and credit card information to information on other passengers, travel routes, and travel agents. Compliance with these Australian requirements by the airlines is creating problems with European data protection legislation. To solve these problems, the Commission entered into negotiations with Australia in order to establish the conditions that would allow access to the PNR data. I abstained from voting on this document because we must in principle decide whether we agree to personal data being collected, i.e. names, flights, passport and credit card data, because there is no absolute guarantee as to the purpose for which they will be used. I believe that the necessity for mass collection and storage of PNR data must be demonstrated and supported by factual evidence for each of the stated purposes. The proportionality (i.e. that the same end cannot be achieved with less intrusive means) must be demonstrated. The purpose must be limited clearly and strictly on the basis of clear legal and well-founded definitions.

  Kent Johansson (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) I think it is important to protect the privacy of individuals and I am against detailed information on air passengers routinely being stored without there being any suspicion of a crime having been committed. This recommendation by the European Parliament is a major improvement on the original text and I therefore appreciate the rapporteur’s efforts. However, I am somewhat sceptical about approving this agreement, as it could be construed as a green light for the PNR system as a whole. I have therefore chosen to abstain.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − The European Union is negotiating three international agreements, with Australia, Canada and the US, on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data. PNR data is provided by passengers, collected by air carriers and used for their ticketing, reservation, and checking-in systems. Given its commercial nature, PNR data contains several kinds of information, ranging from names, addresses, passport numbers, and credit card information to information on other passengers, travel routes, and travel agents. On 5 May 2010 and 11 November 2010, the European Parliament set out its criteria for giving its consent to agreements with third countries on the transfer of PNR data. These appear to have be met, in the case of Australia, so I voted in favour.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Union is negotiating three international agreements with Australia, Canada and the United States on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data. The European Parliament has established that the necessity for the mass collection and storage of PNR data must be demonstrated and supported by factual evidence for each of the stated purposes. We consider that it is necessary to demonstrate the proportionality and the purpose, which must be limited clearly and strictly on the basis of clear legal definitions. The onward transfer of data by the recipient country to third countries must be in line with EU standards of data protection, to be established by a specific adequacy finding.

We consider it necessary, moreover, to point out that a number of criteria have not been met in full and that a number of concerns remain, especially as regards PNR agreements with other third countries. We had asked for further procedural safeguards regarding cooperation between the EU institutions. In particular, we have finally secured a public commitment on the part of the European Commission to submit proposals for the suspension or termination of the agreement upon a request of the European Parliament so as to ensure democratic oversight.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Parliament’s recommendation on the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs Service. PNR data collected by air carriers specifically include the name, address, passport number and credit card details of the passenger concerned. This new agreement will bring the transfer of these data to the Australian Customs Service into line with EU data protection rules. Therefore, one of the main points of the agreement is that PNR data from the EU may be used only for counter-terrorism and crime prevention purposes.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. − The EU-Australia Agreement on the Transfer of PNR (passenger name record data) data does not meet the guarantees requested by the EP in its previous resolutions. The Commission has neither presented factual evidence supporting the claim that storage and processing of PNR for law enforcement purposes is necessary and proportionate, nor has it seriously explored less-intrusive alternatives. In particular, the agreement foresees an unjustified storage period of five and a half years, does not contain adequate safeguards to prevent discriminatory profiling and raises serious concerns regarding compatibility of the Agreement with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as with the case law of the ECHR. Furthermore, the Commission has ignored Parliament’s request to ask the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights for an opinion on the fundamental rights dimension of the Agreement. We stress our commitment to cooperating with Australia and other third countries, but believe the blanket retention and processing of the PNR data of all passengers is incompatible with our vision of an open society. For this reason we voted against the report and supported the GUE/NGL resolution seeking an opinion from the European Court of Justice on the legality of the Agreement.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of adopting Ms in ’t Veld’s recommendation. I would add my voice to the satisfaction expressed over the inclusion of most of the criteria set out by Parliament in the negotiating mandate adopted by the Council. It is right, however, to point out the aspects that have not received a satisfactory response, such as the fact that the Commission has failed to request an opinion of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on the specific agreement with Australia.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. Under this legislation, European air carriers operating flights to and from Australia will continue to transmit the PNR (Passenger Name Record) data they collect to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. A provision is also outlined for a regular, joint review of its operation.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) It should only be possible to hand over citizens’ advance passenger information (API) to foreign authorities. That kind of transfer should be managed by European authorities alone. The agreement we are being asked to adopt between the EU and Australia enables Australian Customs to receive and store not only our API data but also our passenger name record (PNR) data, under circumstances for which they, and the airlines, will have sole responsibility. It also allows the Australian authorities to transfer that data to repressive regimes of third countries. Under the pretext of combating terrorism, freedom of movement is being disregarded for profiling purposes. I voted against this agreement, which I condemn.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The retention of PNR (Passenger Name Record) data has nothing to do with the identification of suspects at border checkpoints. On the contrary, what will happen is that the data belonging to all passengers will be stored willy-nilly, where no grounds for suspicion exist, in order subsequently to identify ‘risky travellers’. It is particularly problematic that this huge infringement of fundamental rights is to be carried out in the name of combating terrorism, even though there is no evidence proving that PNR data is of any benefit in the fight against terrorists. Thus, we should not regard it as progress that the ‘push procedure’ is to be used to forward data to Australia, after all this is the only regulation that is even half-way compatible with EU data protection law. In view of economic pressures, serious doubts must exist regarding whether the airlines really have any interest in practice in passing on passenger data to the authorities at the flight destination on an automatic and selective basis. Thus, data protection will remain illusory, even in relation to the agreement with Australia. I cannot vote in favour of the practice of passing on data when no grounds for suspicion exist.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) Personal data is processed using PNR data, and this raises sensitive questions relating to fundamental rights to privacy and the protection of personal data.

Thus, it must be ensured that the blanket retention and processing of passenger name record data of all passengers comes with strong data protection guarantees and respect for the privacy of EU citizens in compliance with relevant EU norms. Consequently, legal certainty and objective evidence supporting the claim that it is necessary and proportionate to store and process PNR data are needed in both existing and future EU agreements. Moreover, appropriate mechanisms for judicial oversight must be included, arrangements must be set out on the use of PNR data only for law enforcement and security purposes, and the use of data for mining and profiling must be avoided.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The EU-Australia agreement on the processing and transfer of PNR (passenger name record) data by airlines, which I voted in favour of, takes satisfactory account of many of the initial concerns raised by the European Parliament in May 2010. The European Union understands that it cannot prohibit the collection, storage and use of PNR data by third countries, each of which is able to stipulate its entry requirements. Therefore, the EU can only decide if the terms of transfer of such data are in keeping with EU data protection standards. The new agreement is in keeping with EU data protection standards, the main purpose of which is to combat terrorism. The agreement will increase citizens’ security and will provide security of law to airlines and privacy guarantees. Now the Council has the last word on the execution of the agreement.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union is in the process of negotiating three international agreements – with Australia, Canada and the US – on the transfer and processing of passenger name record data. This data is provided by passengers, collected by air carriers and used for their ticketing, reservation and check-in systems. I share the rapporteur’s concern about the proportionality of the mass collection and storage of data. For this reason, and in view of other observations made in the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The present need for an agreement with Australia on Passenger Name Record (PNR) data follows from the Australian border-protection legislation, which empowers Australian Customs to use PNR codes, which contain several kinds of information, including names, addresses, passport numbers and credit card information. This legislation is partially in conflict with the system in Europe where, for data and privacy protection reasons, the PNR code cannot be passed on to other authorities or organisations.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Australian legislation stipulates that airlines must provide the local customs office with data on passengers before they arrive in the country. This is a practice that jeopardises data protection safeguards and which, therefore, has caused the EU institutions to intervene. In this context, it appears impossible to avoid negotiation between the two areas: in fact, in the absence of an agreement, Australian legislation will remain applicable. Reaching a balanced solution is therefore desirable, assuming that any access to passenger data must be understood as exceptional, and that its use and storage must be strictly guided by principles of necessity, appropriateness and proportionality. In this context, Parliament must adopt a leading position in defence of the EU public’s fundamental rights. I voted to adopt this agreement, since these concerns are included in the recommendation on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of passenger name record data.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. − (DE) I have voted against the Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement with the US and Australia because I believe that data protection now plays an increasingly important and fundamental role, which is why it needs to be respected. Despite a number of positive changes, the PNR agreement allows the US to transfer a great deal of personal data about passengers and to retain it for five-and-a-half years. As a citizen of the European Union, which upholds freedom to travel and respect for privacy as fundamental civil rights, I cannot support this agreement. I believe that, although civil liberties should not be sacrificed to an excessive campaign against terror and crime, nonetheless it is possible to find the right balance between preventing crime and protecting the personal data of our citizens. Because this balance is not in evidence here, however, I have decided to vote against the agreement.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. According to us, the Greens/EFA, the Australian Privacy Act, on which the agreement relies for subject access and independent oversight and enforcement, has serious weaknesses. Because of this, the European Commission has never awarded Australia an adequacy rating. The Australian Law Reform Commission’s report ‘For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice’ recommended 295 changes to Australian privacy laws and practices in 2008. While the government has proposed some changes in response, progress is extremely slow and no improvements have been made to date.

Furthermore, there is serious doubt about the compatibility of the new PNR Agreement with the EU Treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as can explicitly or implicitly be read in the statements by the legal services of the Council and the Commission, studies commissioned by the EP, EDPS and FRA opinions, and several rulings by the European Court on Human Rights, the European Court of Justice and national constitutional courts.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Australian Customs Service is seeking to assess the risk presented by European passengers on international air carriers, based on passenger name record (PNR) data, having encountered a problem due to European legislation on data protection. At the Council of 30 June 2008, the Member States signed a cooperation agreement with Australia, with a view to allowing airlines to transfer data to the Australian Customs Service. However, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the ordinary legislative procedure started to apply to negotiating international agreements, requiring Parliament’s approval. In an increasingly globalised world, where the security of the public must be constantly ensured by the competent authorities, and in view of the successful implementation of most of the criteria, I am voting for this EU-Australia agreement. I would also stress that the EU cannot ban the collection, storage and use of PNR data by third countries, but only gets to decide whether the conditions for the transfer of those data are in line with EU data protection standards.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. PNR data is provided by passengers, collected by air carriers and used for their ticketing, reservation, and check-in systems. The scope of the agreement has been restricted to preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences or serious transnational crime, and PNR data may not be used for any other purposes.

Unfortunately, the data retention period of 5.5 years is too long and is in conflict with legal requirements regarding necessity and proportionality, and with relevant jurisprudence, notably rulings by national constitutional courts on the proportionality of long term mass storage of personal data, in the absence of any suspicion or charge. If the directive on the use of PNR data is adopted at EU level, it is extremely important that all agreements concluded with third countries in this area be revised to ensure compliance with that directive and to harmonise the conditions applicable to the agreements.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) At present the EU is negotiating with Australia, Canada and the US in relation to three international agreements on the processing of PNR (Passenger Name Record) data. According to Australian legislation in relation to border security, airlines must permit the Australian customs authorities access to their passengers’ data. Negotiations in relation to a uniform EU legal framework for the processing of PNR data from the EU were concluded in January 2011 and signed by the Council on 29 September. The responsible Committee of the European Parliament examined the agreement thoroughly.

Critical comments were made in relation to the appropriateness of data forwarding provisions, proportionality in terms of data gathering and retention, and the creation of personal profiles, which are not expressly mentioned while also not being genuinely excluded. The draft agreement contains weaknesses in the fundamental criteria for EU data protection, which is why I have voted against the conclusion of the agreement.

Motion for a resolution B7-0542/2011

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this resolution, as I believe that freedoms of religion, belief, conscience and thought are fundamental and universal rights, and are values essential to democracy. The European Union has a duty to guarantee these freedoms and values all over the world, particularly in countries weakened by recent internal conflicts.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this important resolution, which encourages the EU to continue to support the efforts aimed at accelerating democratic, economic and social reforms in Egypt. We, Members of the European Parliament, strongly condemn the killing of protestors in Egypt and welcome efforts by Egyptian authorities to identify the perpetrators of the attacks on Christian communities, while stressing the importance of an independent investigation by an independent civil judiciary. We call on the Egyptian authorities to ensure full respect for all fundamental rights, including freedom of association, peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of religion, conscience and thought for all citizens in Egypt. We believe that a new Constitution should explicitly provide for the protection of all fundamental rights. In regards to Syria we express our deepest concern regarding the human rights violations perpetrated by the Syrian authorities and reiterate our call on President Bashar al-Assad and his regime to relinquish power immediately and allow a democratic transition to take place in Syria. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Syria is of great importance and we welcome the commitment of the EU to continue to press for strong UN action to increase international pressure.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I support this resolution and express the hope that acts of intimidation and violent repression against Christian minorities will cease. The European Union should vehemently condemn any form of discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief and on grounds on gender, ethnicity or language. When hundreds of Christians are being persecuted and cruelly killed for religious reasons, the situation must be condemned in unison by all those who believe in the values of religious freedom, in freedom of conscience and thought and in democratic values.

I wish to encourage Egyptian and Syrian civil society to move quickly towards an open dialogue with all political forces, not forgetting about respect for democratic values and faiths, or the existence of the principle of separation between church and state.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution because, as freedom of religion and thought are universal values and essential elements of democracy, I believe it is important to take a clear position on what is happening in Egypt and Syria. Egypt is a key partner of the EU in the Arab world, and this text expresses our deep concern about the violent incidents of 9 October 2011, during a peaceful march organised by Coptic Christians in Cairo, which resulted in the death of 25 persons and 300 people being injured. I consider the setting up by the Egyptian government of a fact-finding committee to investigate these incidents to be of primary importance. With regard to Syria, we strongly condemn the Syrian regime’s brutal repression of its population and ask again for President Bashar al-Assad to step aside in order to open the way to the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Syrian people. It is also important to note that the ongoing events in Syria are accompanied by actions aimed at inciting inter-ethnic and inter-confessional conflict and increasing sectarian tensions. Consequently we encourage the Syrian opposition forces to reconfirm their commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms and, notably, freedom of conscience and thought.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mindful of the need to respect fundamental freedoms, I voted in favour of a resolution condemning the attacks on Christian communities in Egypt and the Syrian population. This resolution demonstrates the European Parliament’s support for the drive towards democracy currently sweeping through Arab countries and condemns the use of force.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) By vetoing the UN Security Council draft resolution condemning the attacks by the Syrian regime on its own people, China and Russia have taken on a heavy moral and political responsibility. From a moral point of view, the Russian and Chinese Governments have become complicit in the massive repression which, in six months, has resulted in thousands of people being killed and dozens imprisoned arbitrarily. From a political point of view, even though the Arab League and neighbouring countries have called for the cessation of the violence, Russia and China have clearly rejected the legitimate demand for freedom, democracy and change from the people of the region. In the absence of a UN Security Council resolution, Europe must impose tougher sanctions on the regime of President al-Assad and give its full support to the newly established Syrian National Council.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the resolution on the situation in Egypt and Syria, in particular as regards the Christian communities, because freedom of religion, belief, conscience, and thought are fundamental and universal values, and are essential elements of democracy which should be guaranteed by the governments of countries all over the world.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The industrious and peaceful Christian communities of Syria and Egypt should be granted the utmost respect and protection by all those who value the dignity of human life and the religious beliefs of minorities. The participation of everyone in the reconstruction of their own societies is crucial in order for them to live up to the hopes, dreams and ambitions of their peoples. They have been repeatedly advocating the establishment of full democracy and the rule of law in their countries so that their culture and traditions might be respected. These also make up part of the Christian legacy of their people. The Arab Spring is a symbol for all those yearning for dignity, democracy and human rights in the Arab world. Peaceful demonstrations involving people of greatly diverse origins were severely repressed by the security forces in those countries. Parliament should support the efforts of those struggling for freedom and for an end to violence against the people.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We have recently seen the terrible news about the persecution of a religious Christian minority in Egypt, which has resulted in the deaths of 30 Christians and around 350 wounded, as well as in the destruction of a church in Cairo. Given that the European Union, as a bulwark of values and an uncompromising defender of rights, supported the revolt of the peoples of certain Arab countries during what is being called the ‘Arab Spring’, it cannot remain indifferent to abuses of freedoms and the safeguarding of the public. I therefore strongly support this joint motion for a resolution condemning the actions of an extremist Islamic group against the Christians who make up a 10% minority in Egypt. The fate of minorities is always problematic. First and foremost, we cannot tolerate any kind of discrimination. Egypt should rebuild the church and prevent these attacks on religious freedom. As a community of values, the EU and Egypt must jointly reaffirm the fundamental importance of respect for minorities and the need to set an example by punishing such criminals, as the ‘Arab Spring’ must be synonymous with freedom, and not merely a utopia.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This resolution, like the events it concerns, is part of an attempt to distract attention from the crux of what is happening in Egypt: a democratic process of national liberation, after decades of dictatorship, from a regime with which the EU was complicit and complacent. In various ways, including by fomenting religious differences in order to safeguard the military junta and its discretionary power, it is thus seeking to stoke confusion, to the detriment of the powerful democratic demands of the masses, and of their fight for an independent legal system and the conviction of the dictatorship’s senior figures; for the actual transfer of power from the military to civilians; and for profound political change, aimed at improving the living conditions of the workers and the majority of the people.

Attempts at foreign interference are persisting in the case of Syria, encouraged and supported with weapons, so threatening the territorial integrity and sovereignty of this country by means of a process very similar to the one leading to military intervention in Libya by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It also seeks to conceal the essential nature of the popular demonstrations, which are calling for better living conditions for the people, whilst rejecting any foreign interference in the country.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This resolution seeks to divert attention from what is happening in Egypt, adding to the confusion and seeking to stir up religious differences in order to safeguard the military junta against the powerful democratic demands of the masses, who are fighting for an independent legal system and the conviction of the leaders of the dictatorship, for the swift transition of power from the military to civilians, and for policies aimed at improving the living conditions of the majority of the people.

In the case of Syria, there is an insistence on exacerbating the current situation in an attempt to hide foreign interference, encouraged and supported by weapons, which is threatening the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syria by means of a process very similar to the one which led to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s military intervention in Libya. It also seeks to conceal the essential nature of the popular demonstrations calling for the improvement of their living conditions, while rejecting any foreign intervention in the country.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) We have recently made various pronouncements in response to the dramatic situation in the Arab countries. The Arab world has been shaken by unrest which in some countries has led to governments being overthrown and completely paralysed other countries. Their people are rising against dictatorial regimes and rule by radical groups and calling for democracy to be established. After several months of demonstrations the situation has not stabilised, but is deteriorating. The situation in Libya, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt and Syria is particularly intolerable. A humanitarian crisis, refugees, displaced persons and food shortages are undoubtedly the most urgent problems requiring intervention by the appropriate European institutions. However, the situation has also been exacerbated by a lack of respect for religious freedom. An extensive attempt at Islamisation through the massacre of the Egyptian Copts is a serious crime which the European Union should not take lightly. Attempting to bring about religious dialogue and reconciliation between Muslims and Christians is the only way to achieve freedom and to defuse the situation, not just in Egypt but in the other Arab states. Simply expressing our condemnation of the precarious situation in the Arab world is not enough. The Union must take more decisive steps to try and bring about moderate political change in the region.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Almost nine months after the fall of Hosni Moubarak, and with President al-Assad of Syria clinging on to power at the price of a bloody repression, I voted in favour of this resolution, which condemns the murders of peaceful militants in Egypt and Syria and calls on the authorities of both countries to protect Christian communities. In Egypt, although the revolution had raised tremendous hope of freedom, the repression of the Coptic Christians is a reminder that the situation of the minorities in the Middle East remains extremely worrying. More worrying still is the situation in Syria, where President al-Assad, in a murderous surge forward, continues to persecute protesters and to eliminate those who oppose the regime. Here too, Christians are under threat, and it behoves the Syrian authorities to guarantee their safety. However, as we are dealing with a regime that has lost its footing and which retains power through weapons, repression and torture, it is an illusion to expect anything. President al-Assad must step down as quickly as possible in the interests of the Syrian people and the stability of the entire region.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because there is concern about the situation of Christians in Syria, in particular their safety. Actions aimed at inciting inter-confessional conflict are to be condemned. The current and future Syrian authorities must ensure reliable and efficient protection for the Christian communities. An independent, transparent and effective investigation should be carried out into the killings, arrests, arbitrary detention and alleged forced disappearances and instances of torture by the Syrian security forces in order to ensure that the perpetrators of such acts are held to account by the international community. I also agree and believe that the new Constitution in Egypt should explicitly provide for the protection of all fundamental rights, including freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of religion, conscience and thought, and the protection of minorities. The Egyptian authorities must make sure that any constitutional provision is inclusive and leaves no possibility for discrimination against anyone in Egyptian society.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution. The growing violence towards Christians in North Africa and the Middle East is an extremely worrying trend. The EU must strengthen its call for religious tolerance and equal opportunities. I remind the EU that the European Parliament has called for mainstreaming the freedom of religion in EU human rights policy. The revolution in Egypt has brought down a dictator, but has not ended the violence. Recent extreme violence against the Coptic Christians cannot be tolerated by the international community. The EU should strongly demand the removal of references to religion in all official documents, guaranteed equal access to all public and political posts, access to unconditional, free medical treatment for the wounded and the release of the 28 Christians held in custody in Maspero. Action is needed now, especially in view of the fact that Egyptian public media have called for violence and the possible threat of radical Islamisation until and during the upcoming elections, as indicated by statements of high officials such as Major General Rouini, who has claimed that the entire army and population of Egypt is Salafist.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution, which calls on the Egyptian authorities to ensure full respect for all fundamental rights, including freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of religion, conscience and thought for all citizens in Egypt, including Coptic Christians, and that Coptic Christian communities do not fall victim to violent attacks and can live in peace and freely express their beliefs throughout the country. It calls for the adequate protection of churches in order to put an end to the continuous aggression and destruction of churches by Islamic extremists and welcomes continued efforts to adopt a ‘Common Code for building places of worship’, stressing that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a fundamental right guaranteed by legal instruments.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Religious freedom is an essential part of all democracies. Condemning and preventing attacks and massacres of Christian communities must be a priority for the European institutions and for the whole international community, because defending these minorities forms the basis for our understanding of civil coexistence and democracy. I am voting in favour.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As humanists and universalists we should fight for universal ethics based on the sacred obligation to protect every human being. We should take action every day to guarantee the protection of human rights for all, including minorities. The EU, as the foundation of democratic values, should remain vigilant in order to establish a world of greater freedom, fairness, solidarity and respect for all. It must work to build a society that respects man and his different identities, a society that rejects discrimination and asserts that man does not just carry one identity within him, but several.

Did John F. Kennedy not state before the Protestant Council of New York in 1963 that ‘the Family of Man is not limited to a single race or religion’? Reducing a human being’s identity to a single characteristic is an entirely false conception of the individual. Some make this incorrect assessment through a lack of reflection. Others exploit this shortcut out of opportunism and malice. Each man is defined by a multitude of different identities.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) The sustained violence against government critics in Syria and growing tensions in Egypt are a major concern. The goal of democracy and freedom from tyranny comes before everything else – it must not perish in the battle for power. I believe that the elections in Egypt beginning on 28 November will become one of the turning points that will determine the future course of the Egyptian state – be it towards polarisation and radicalisation or democracy and respect for human rights. However, it is hard to imagine free and democratic elections because they will take place in a state of emergency in which freedom of the press and freedom of assembly are restricted, civilians are subject to mass arrests and trial in military courts, women’s rights are being undermined, and polarisation and radicalisation are deepening. One can only welcome the decision to investigate the events which led to the killing of peaceful Coptic protesters. The perpetrators must be found and held to account – this is an obligation of the rule of law. This is not enough, however. The interim Egyptian Government must create the conditions for political and civil society to prepare for a peaceful and calm election campaign, and itself be ready to transfer power to representatives elected in democratic and free elections recognised by the international community.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution because Christians have found themselves in a particularly difficult situation in Egypt and Syria, two countries with a Muslim majority which are currently undergoing major political and social change. It is thus very important to ensure that Christian communities receive credible and effective protection.

It should be noted that Syria urgently needs to begin implementing a process of serious democratic reforms because major human rights violations committed by the ruling regime in suppressing civil riots continue to cause concern. The use of violence against peaceful protestors should also be prevented.

Urgent democratic, economic and social reforms are also necessary in Egypt so that security forces do not use disproportionate force against peaceful residents, in particular against Coptic Christians, and the protection of all fundamental human rights is guaranteed.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution. Egypt and Syria are going through a critical period of democratisation which involves important problems and challenges. The victims of the peaceful march organised on 9 October by the Coptic Christians in protest against the attack on a Coptic church in Aswan are the worst possible proof that the path to democracy, to dealing with religious discrimination, to adopting effect penal sanctions against religious discrimination and to restoring normality in society is not easy. In this resolution, the European Parliament sends a message of solidarity to the Egyptian people at this difficult time in the country’s move towards democracy, strongly condemns the killing of protesters in Egypt and calls on the authorities to guarantee full respect for all fundamental rights, including freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of religion, conscience and thought for all citizens in Egypt.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution on the situation in Egypt and Syria, in particular of the Christian communities, as I agree with Parliament’s recommendations to the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is not without regret that we are hearing the news currently reaching us of the persecution of Christian communities in Egypt and Syria. From Egypt, the reports are mainly about the persecution of members of the Coptic Church. Apart from the high number of believers who have already left the country, there are reports of summary judgments being handed down by military tribunals, which offer no guarantees of a defence or an independent trial. In addition, at least 25 Egyptians were killed and more than 300 injured in a peaceful religious demonstration which took place in the north of Cairo.

In Syria, for its part, religious persecution has formed part of the severe repression that has been making itself felt, and which has led to a veritable policy of massacring opponents of the regime over the past few months. In view of this, Parliament unreservedly condemns religious persecution, and expresses its solidarity with all the current victims of such acts. I therefore voted in favour.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The acts of violence that have taken place in recent months in Egypt and Syria, including those that directly undermine freedom of thought and conscience, cannot be ignored within the European Union. Both these countries have experienced major sectarian tensions, particularly with regard to Christian communities, which have resulted in killings and intolerable situations of displacement. The resolution adopted by the European Parliament today calls for these acts to be condemned and for their perpetrators to be identified and brought to justice. I hope that we will be heard. The European Parliament also expresses its solidarity with the Egyptian and Syrian people and supports their democratic aspirations, insisting, in the case of Egypt, on the importance of the new constitution. It is crucial that Europe supports these countries during this period of transition, and I welcome this vote.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The EP: 1. Expresses again its solidarity with the Egyptian people in this critical and difficult period of democratic transition in the country and continues to support their democratic aspirations; encourages the EU and its Member States to continue to support the efforts aimed at accelerating democratic, economic and social reforms in Egypt; and 2. Strongly condemns the killing of protestors in Egypt; expresses its sincere condolences to the families of all victims; calls on the authorities to ensure that security forces do not use disproportionate force; emphasises the right of all citizens to demonstrate freely and peacefully, under due protection from law enforcement authorities; and calls on the Egyptian authorities to release the 28 arrested Christians at Maspero as well all others arrested.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I have already tabled several questions to the European Union and Baroness Ashton on how they intend to intervene to protect religious minorities and civil rights in the Arab countries. In particular, they must focus on the Christian minorities in Egypt, Syria and Iraq. I believe that the transition must take place with respect for those countries’ obligations as regards civil and religious rights. The European Union must have the courage to break off diplomatic relations with those countries that do not respect these rights.

As far as the situation in Syria and Iran is concerned, the EU must intervene to ensure respect for the right of those countries’ citizens to demonstrate freely. I condemn any attempt to restrict the free flow of information, attacks on and intimidation of journalists and defenders of human rights. I should like to stress that the citizens’ democratic aspirations must be respected through dialogue and political reforms, with full protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and through free and fair elections.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Over recent months, Syria and Egypt have been undergoing a critical period in the transition to democracy, facing serious difficulties and considerable challenges in this process of social stability and economic development. I would like to voice my complete solidarity with the Egyptian and Syrian peoples, and I hope that the authorities will succeed in identifying the perpetrators of and those responsible for the attacks against Christian communities. I also believe that it is crucial that the authorities respect the public’s fundamental rights, especially freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion, conscience and thought for all citizens. I am voting for this resolution of the European Parliament on the situation in Egypt and Syria, on which it is essential that the EU take a clear and unequivocal position by strongly condemning the murder of protestors. I also believe that the EU should adopt measures in cases of serious human rights violations, and it should also make way for the adoption of new aid measures aimed at supporting both peoples in their progress towards a peaceful democratic transition.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the Parliament resolution on the situation in Egypt and Syria, in particular of Christian communities, because the freedoms of religion, belief, conscience and thought are fundamental and universal values and are essential elements of democracy. The European Union has repeatedly expressed its commitment to the freedoms of religion, belief, conscience and thought, and has stressed that governments have a duty to guarantee these freedoms all over the world.

We welcome the efforts by the Egyptian authorities to identify those responsible for and the perpetrators of attacks against the Christian community. We ask the Egyptian authorities to ensure full respect for all fundamental rights, including freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of religion, conscience and belief for all citizens of Egypt, including Coptic Christians, and to ensure that the Coptic Christian community is not victim to violent attack and is able to live in peace and express its beliefs freely throughout the country. We call on the Egyptian authorities to end discrimination against Coptic Christians, for example by removing references to religion from all official documents, and to ensure that constitutional provisions are inclusive and do not leave loopholes for discrimination against anybody in Egyptian society.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The favourable outcome of the vote concerning the resolution on the situation in Egypt and Syria, with particular regard for Christian communities, is confirmation of the fact that Europe continues to look after ethnic and religious minorities. Unfortunately, the situation has now become even more worrying due to a trail of blood and death, in Egypt above all, but also elsewhere in the world, which the European institutions cannot ignore. Parliament is alive to this and intends to take action to ensure that such episodes are not repeated. There is no use in denying that tension exists between Muslims and Christians, but stopping there would only afford a partial view of the situation. History teaches us that religions can coexist, as long as the climate is right. The current difficulties are worsened by hidden troublemakers, who fan the flames to deepen the conflict and impede the transition to democracy. We need to clarify the role of the armed forces in this phase, as they have all too frequently turned into the agents of repression, rather than guarantors of transition. We appeal to the representatives of all religions, philosophies and schools of thought to contribute to civil and peaceful coexistence. Europe – the home of fundamental rights and freedoms – will do its part to ensure that these principles are respected.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on this resolution, which expresses deep concern over the situation of Christian communities. On this matter, the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left has tabled a resolution with a very different message.

I take no issue with defending the right of Coptic Christians to freely practise their religion without being subjected to the slightest aggression and without running the risk of being imprisoned or, worse still, killed.

However, human rights cannot be defended if we have double standards. Murders and human rights violations are a daily reality in Syria, and the situation in Egypt is far from stable.

The EU should not defend any particular community. It should not discriminate but, rather, defend freedom of thought, conscience, religion and, more broadly, public freedoms and democracy without making any distinctions. It is this truly universal conception of human rights that I support.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR), in writing. − (PL) The European Parliament in its resolution of 20 January 2011 stated that it wants Egypt to be free and to become an exemplary state in the area of ensuring civil liberties and rights as well as religious rights and freedoms. Recently I called Baroness Ashton’s attention to the fact that violence against the Copts is on the rise and that there has been a considerable increase in the number of extreme Islamist political groups. I warned that without a firm stand on the issue of religious freedoms the provision of assistance to Egypt should be out of the question. As I feared, we have witnessed constant attacks on Christians in the last five months. Furthermore, in the course of bloody clashes the army that at present rules the country has killed 36 and wounded more than 200 Copts. The reality of the situation is that the new authorities are not responding either to the shameful acts of religious violence or to the increasing lack of restraint of extreme Islamic militants, who are attacking places of worship such as the church in Aswan.

This hard-line approach towards Christians is also reflected in the draft of the new constitution of Egypt, which contains direct reference to sharia law. It is worth reminding ourselves that according to the version of the constitution that has been in force since 1956, Christians cannot renovate their church buildings without presidential consent. How many similar ideas do we still have to accept? Under such circumstances, the European Union should not sign any trade agreements with Egypt and should suspend all aid, until a new constitution is announced that offers full protection to Christians who are resident there and that gives them equal rights with the Islamic majority.

Motion for a resolution B7-0543/2011

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this motion for a resolution, as I believe that the law should be unequivocally reaffirmed in all Member States of the EU, and that, despite the apparent stability of Ukraine in the face of court cases involving senior state officials and even the Prime Minister, a clear signal needs to be given that the country’s legal system is effective and transparent. Democratic stability should be ensured so that we can consider whether Ukraine can become a full Member State of the EU.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I fully support this resolution, which looks forward to a deepening of relations between the EU and Ukraine, provided that all criteria, including respect for the principles of democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, are met by Ukraine. However we, as Members of the European Parliament, express deep concern that the Tymoshenko trial is at odds with the Ukraine Government's proclaimed commitment to democracy and European values, and are concerned at the continued detention of the former Minister of the Interior, Yuri Lutsenko. We insist that all judicial proceedings against former and current senior government officials should be conducted in accordance with European standards of fairness, impartiality, transparency and independence; we believe that failure to review Yulia Tymoshenko’s conviction will jeopardise the conclusion of the Association Agreement and its ratification, while pushing the country further away from the realisation of its European perspective, and we stress that the strengthening of the rule of law and internal reform, including a credible fight against corruption, are essential for the conclusion and ratification of the Association Agreement and the deepening of EU-Ukraine relations.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this resolution because its text could generate confusion about the European Parliament’s commitment to the issue of human rights and the rule of law.

The resolution gives the impression that Yulia Tymoshenko, the famous Ukrainian tycoon and politician now in jail, deserves to be supported as if she where a champion of freedom and justice in her country. Ms Tymoshenko came to international attention after the end of the Soviet Union as a member of the new oligarchy who accumulated huge fortunes through the fraudulent privatisation of public goods and through shady practices in business and politics in Ukraine and Russia. She had already been arrested a decade ago on economic crime charges. Ms Tymoshenko’s opponents and current competitors for power in Ukraine are no better than she. I do not therefore understand why the EU should meddle in a fight between two factions of foreign oligarchs, nether of which is either credible as a victim or committed to the values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Nor do I understand why our relationship with Ukraine as a country should be affected by the Tymoshenko case.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Orange Revolution in Ukraine represented a historic turning point. However, the imprisonment of one of the actors of this revolution, the former leader of the opposition, Yulia Tymoshenko, is a setback in the democratic progress recorded since 2004 and undermines relations between Ukraine and Europe. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the resolution of the European Parliament condemning her imprisonment.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution, as it argues that all legal proceedings against senior officials of the current or previous Ukrainian Government must be carried out in accordance with European rules on equity, impartiality, transparency and independence. I believe that strengthening the rule of law and carrying out internal reforms involving credible efforts to combat corruption are essential for strengthening EU-Ukrainian relations and for consolidating democracy in Ukraine.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This joint motion for a resolution on the current situation in Ukraine was tabled following a declaration by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy pursuant to Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The violation of human rights in this country has been condemned in previous resolutions by this House. Although Ukraine has applied for EU membership, there have been allegations of serious violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, especially in terms of a lack of respect for minorities, the curtailing of freedom and persecution of opponents of the current regime, as in the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, who has been sentenced in a politicised trial lacking all transparency, which has sparked much international criticism. While I believe the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine should be signed in December 2011, I voted for this joint motion for a resolution, as I believe the EU’s increasing closeness to Ukraine will help the country’s government to realise that it has to respect democratic life and stop persecuting its opponents.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In this resolution, the majority in Parliament once again shows its complete lack of respect for the fundamental principles of international law, especially non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It also violates principles that it claims to follow, such as the separation of powers, impartiality, transparency and the independence of the judiciary from political power, when it seeks to influence the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko that is underway in the Ukrainian courts. They go even further, using blackmail and threats, saying that if Ms Tymoshenko’s conviction is not overturned, it ‘will jeopardise the conclusion of the association agreement and its ratification, while pushing the country further away from the realisation of its European perspective’. The majority in Parliament have difficulty in hiding the hypocrisy of this policy, the fundamental aim of which is to interfere in Ukraine’s internal affairs in order to create better conditions for defending the interests of big business and the financial sectors in their own countries. In view of all this, we voted against this resolution.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The current political situation in Ukraine relating to the conviction of the former premier and opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko clearly illustrates the urgent need for judicial reform in Ukraine. The European Union should be ready to provide assistance and take steps that would help to modernise the legal system and to strengthen the rule of law in Ukraine. There are also doubts with regard to the transparency and impartiality of the trial. Independent bodies have clearly stated that the trial did not meet international democratic standards. The critical situation in that country should be viewed seriously and not relativised. While it is important to try to prevent similar situations arising in future, it is equally important to secure a fair and impartial legal process to replace politically-biased judicial processes by putting in place a modern, impartial judiciary. I hope that we will be witnesses to an appeal process in which the Ukrainian judiciary will not ignore the European institutions’ condemnation of the tendentious and undemocratic nature of the trial. We need to work together to create conditions which will strengthen the European integration process in Ukraine on the basis of common values, respect for individual rights and the application of democratic standards.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution, which condemns current developments in Ukraine following the sentencing of Yulia Tymoshenko, the main political opponent of President Yanukovych. This condemnation marks the distancing of Ukraine from fundamental European values and standards. Ukraine is a young country, which has been independent for just 20 years. It must completely overhaul its legislation and administration, which were profoundly influenced by the Soviet era. However, if this country now wishes to move closer to the European Union and conclude important agreements with it, such as the Association Agreement, it must stop imprisoning former policy makers, here, there and everywhere. More broadly, it must respect fundamental European values of democracy, rule of law, basic human freedoms and human rights. Ukraine is still, essentially, the theatre of serious violations of the freedom of the press, association, and assembly, of corruption in its judicial system, and of cases of torture and ill-treatment in its detention centres.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because it is considered that a deepening of relations between the EU and Ukraine and offering Ukraine the prospect of EU accession are of great significance and in the interests of both parties. It recognises Ukraine’s European aspirations with the condition that all criteria, including respect for the principles of democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, are met. I believe that the Ukrainian Government must consistently adhere to its proclaimed commitment to democracy and European values. All judicial proceedings against former and current senior government officials should be conducted in accordance with European standards of fairness, impartiality, transparency and independence. There is concern about some signs of a decline in democratic freedoms and over the possible use of state institutions for partisan purposes and to exact political revenge. Strengthening the rule of law and effectively combating corruption are essential not only for the conclusion and ratification of the Association Agreement and the deepening of EU-Ukraine relations in general, but also for the consolidation of democracy in Ukraine. The authorities should take all necessary measures to protect these essential aspects of a democratic society and to refrain from any attempt to control, directly or indirectly, the content of national media reporting. I am pleased that agreement has been reached on the conclusion of a deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement. I believe that this agreement is a solid basis for finalising the negotiations on an Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution, to which all political groups have contributed, which expresses disappointment at the imprisonment of Ms Yulia Tymoshenko, former Prime Minister and leader of the opposition in Ukraine. In this way, the European Parliament has decided to adopt a stance against serious violations of democratic principles in a state that wishes to become a full EU member. I have asked and will continue to ask the EU to condemn just as strongly the oppressive regimes in the EU and beyond.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution because Ukraine has high importance for the EU and we therefore have especially to remind Ukraine of its obligations to fulfil the criteria of the rule of law and an independent judiciary. Nevertheless, I would like to underline the importance of the EFTA. Ukraine is at the crossroads and the EU has to demonstrate its political commitment to engage in deeper and far-reaching relations with this country. I support conditionality and reciprocity. All the same, I call on the EU to be careful in its assessment of whether to delay the signing of the EFTA. We should not forget that Ukrainians are Europeans and that their future is associated with the EU. Various civil society organisations are vocally calling for EFTA without delay and I believe we have to listen to them. The EU should not give in on its demands for an independent judiciary, but it should also think twice before putting EFTA in the balance during the political bargaining, considering that the people who will suffer most from the delay are the ordinary Ukrainian citizens.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution, which deplores the sentencing of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko as a violation of human rights and an abuse of the judiciary for the purpose of the political suppression of Ukraine’s leading opposition politician. It emphasises that the law selectively applied against Tymoshenko dates back to Soviet times and makes provision for criminal prosecution for political decisions, and Articles 364 and 365 of that law, which are currently under review by the Verhovna Rada, do not conform to European and UN standards.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. - (CS) We have been talking for years about the danger of corruption in developing countries, particularly to the east of the EU’s borders, including corruption in the highest places. Reports on the topic of corruption are often true, of course, while also being full of rumour. There is now a split between Ukrainian society and the media regarding the trial of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Was she or was she not involved in corruption? The proposers of the resolution are convinced that she was not. They are entitled to their opinion. In civilised countries, however, it is the courts that decide on these issues. I do not doubt that courts can make mistakes. Against such an eventuality, the rule of law includes the institution of appeal to a court of higher instance, perhaps all the way to Strasbourg.

I have not heard that the former Prime Minister was denied this right. I acknowledge that this process is lengthy, disagreeable and imperfect. No better one has been devised, however. The resolution suggests that the court was politicised. I do not know. The Commission and the European Parliament, however, have both interfered with it politically. Is the fact that we dislike someone’s opponent really enough to make us stand up for a politician or oligarch suspected of corruption? Or are you also afraid of judgments against corruption in the highest places in the EU?

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Implementing reforms that significantly increase its citizens’ freedoms is not only important for former-Soviet Ukraine’s relations with the European Union, but also for the consolidation of democracy. The European Union has an extremely important role to play, given the worrying signs of recent months. I am voting in favour.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Ukraine has been a partner of choice for the European Union for several years. However, recent events mean that Ukraine is no longer a ‘just state’ governed by the rule of law, which we find very worrying. Indeed, Yulia Tymoshenko, former Prime Minister of Ukraine, was unjustly sentenced under her country’s legal system. Similarly, Yuri Lutsenko, former Minister of the Interior, was also detained without good reason. Could that not be seen as the desire to stifle opposition? The European Union, defender of human rights, democracy and basic freedoms, cannot remain insensitive to such a situation on its doorstep, because Ukraine is well and truly a European country. Relations between Ukraine and the European Union must be based on the promotion of common values. In the interests of maintaining regular, open contact with our Ukrainian counterparts, this report rightly highlights the urgent efforts that need to be made before the December summit.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I wholeheartedly support the process of Ukraine’s rapprochement with the European Union and the European reforms in the country. The agreement reached on a deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement is to be welcomed, but it is disappointing that the Ukrainian Government seriously failed to appreciate the concern signalled by the EU and, through its recent actions, has made further progress even more difficult. The Ukrainian Government must understand that the European Union is not just an economic union but also one of values, and its goal of moving closer to it, and particularly the realisation of its European perspective, solely through economic ties will not produce the desired results. I therefore call on Ukraine to strengthen the rule of law and carry out reforms to the legal framework in accordance with the recommendations of the Venice Commission.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I did not support the points that were emphasised in the resolution dealing with the events in Ukraine. The European Parliament does not have the authority to be an ‘attorney’ for Yulia Tymoshenko. That is precisely the tendency of the main argument of the resolution. The conviction of the former prime minister is an assessment of her activities, of an action that exceeded her authority and of her fraudulent positive portrayal of a controversial government decision that made it possible for Ukraine to conclude an economically unfavourable agreement with the Russian Federation. Thus it is not correct to refer to the judgment as a violation of human rights and to the trial as politically motivated. It is nevertheless true that every trial of a politician is to a certain extent political. We in this parliament have also participated in giving a political veneer to this trial.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution because, in order to strengthen and develop EU-Ukraine relations, whereby the latter is being given the prospect of accession to the EU, we must be sure that respect for the principles of democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are guaranteed in Ukraine. It is also very important that all judicial proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the principles of fairness, transparency, impartiality and independence. Ukraine should unconditionally comply with democratic rules.

It is to be welcomed that agreement has finally been reached on a deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement. It should be noted that this agreement is a solid basis for finalising the negotiations on an Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine. However, to ensure that the process of Ukraine’s rapprochement with the EU proceeds quickly, Ukraine should make every effort to ensure that processes within the country take place in strict compliance with the requirements of the rule of law and that corruption is tackled more effectively.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) The decision by a Ukrainian court to sentence former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to seven years’ imprisonment has disappointed the European Union. Such steps are reminiscent of how the authoritarian President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, deals with political opponents. I agree with the EU’s assessment that the Ukrainian court dealing with Yulia Tymoshenko’s case failed to meet the international standards of fairness, transparency and independence applied to judicial proceedings. This trial has dealt a severe blow to EU-Ukraine relations, which are particularly sensitive now that negotiations on an Association Agreement have been concluded. Any improvement in relations will also depend on how events relating to the former Prime Minster unfold. Reform of the criminal code and the judicial system in Ukraine should be accelerated. I also voted in favour of this resolution because I support the rapporteur’s call for the Tymoshenko case not to place any fundamental obstacles in the way of Ukraine’s integration into Europe. We call for the signing of the EU-Ukraine Association and Free Trade Agreement in December not to be postponed.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution on the current situation in Ukraine, as I share its concerns in relation to the political persecution that has been taking place in that country.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR), in writing. − (PL) At the present time Ukraine finds itself on the brink of a decision that will have a bearing on the destiny of this country for decades to come: whether it will associate its future with the European Union or turn from Europe towards Russia. An EU-Ukraine Association Agreement was supposed to be signed at the December summit this year, the first agreement of its type with a large country neighbouring the EU. Unfortunately, recent events in Ukraine, including the trial and conviction of the former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, have raised a big question mark as to the possibility of a rapid conclusion to the negotiations and initialling of the agreement. The authorities of the EU and of the Member States have made it clear to President Yanukovych that politically-motivated trials are not compatible with the standards that are held within the European Union.

The resolution adopted today gives an additional emphasis to this message. I do believe, however, that such signals should not block the road towards a quick signing of the Association Agreement, which would serve the best interests of both Ukraine and the European Union, since it will provide for a better monitoring of Ukraine’s responsibilities, especially in the sphere of strengthening democracy and introducing the required reforms.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Recent events in Ukraine have attracted the concern of international analysts. According to the information available at present, the former Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, has been sentenced to seven years in prison, to a three-year ban on political activity, to a USD 200 million fine and to the confiscation of all her property, on the basis of an old Soviet law whose purpose was launching politically motivated criminal proceedings. Whatever the basis of the decision made, its break with the fundamental principles of the rule of law should be strongly condemned, along with the severely disproportionate punishments. It is feared, moreover, that the basis of this decision was the proximity of the next election. In view of this, I would like to reiterate the points made in the resolution, for which I voted, calling on Ukraine to reform its justice system in the near future, bringing it in line with the fundamental principles that should govern the democratic rule of law.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union, in its commercial relations with third countries, must not ignore the basic principles of respect for the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and human rights. These principles must be taken into consideration, particularly during negotiations leading to a free trade agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. However, recent events in that country, especially the sentencing of Yulia Tymoshenko, are very worrying. I welcome the adoption by the European Parliament of this resolution, and am pleased that the text emphasises the need to resume the dialogue with President Yanukovych, to support the implementation of a balanced and transparent political debate, and to accelerate ongoing reforms in the Ukrainian State.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The EP: 1. Takes the view that a deepening of relations between the EU and Ukraine and the fact of offering Ukraine a European perspective are of great significance and in the interests of both parties; recognises Ukraine’s aspirations pursuant to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, provided that all criteria, including respect for the principles of democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, are met; 2. Deplores the sentencing of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko as a violation of human rights and an abuse of the judiciary for the purpose of the political suppression of Ukraine’s leading opposition politician; emphasises that the law selectively applied against Tymoshenko dates back to Soviet times and makes provision for criminal prosecution for political decisions, while Articles 364 and 365 of that law, which are currently under review by the Verhovna Rada, do not conform to European and UN standards; 3. Urges the Ukrainian authorities to ensure a fair, transparent and impartial legal process should Yulia Tymoshenko appeal against her conviction, and in the other trials against members of the former government.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The recent sentencing of Yulia Tymoshenko and the continued imprisonment of Yuri Lutsenko, despite all the rules governing the principle of fair judicial proceedings, go against the statements issued by the Ukrainian authorities, who claim to be committed to fundamental rights and democracy. I supported this resolution during the plenary vote because Ukraine needs to be sent a clear message: it cannot persist with its desire to tighten links with the EU while, at the same time, disregarding the fundamental principles it defends. On 20 October, the EU and Ukraine announced that the technical negotiations on their association agreement had finished, and that they were looking to sign the agreement before the end of 2011. The previous week, in the Committee on International Trade, we refused to give an opinion on that agreement, precisely on account of recent developments in the area of human rights in Ukraine. We call on Ukraine to assume its responsibilities and to begin a transparent debate on the political decision-making process and respect for fundamental values such as democracy and media pluralism. The EU is ready to provide technical support, but the impetus has to come from Ukraine.

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The motion for a resolution on Ukraine touches some very fundamental issues for the people of both the EU and Ukraine. Although we need to focus more sharply on Ukraine, we have to be stricter as regards the EU's actions as well. If biased political trials against the opposition are against freedom, democracy and human rights in Ukraine, so is neglecting the security of our own Member States. Namely, the decision of the French President to sell a Mistral-class warship to Russia calls into question peace and security in the Baltic Sea and Black Sea area. Furthermore (ceterum censeo), I am convinced France will sincerely regret its decision to sell a Mistral-class warship to Russia.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU’s foreign policy is based on the founding principles of the European Community itself, one being the rule of law, and the impartiality, independence and fairness of legal proceedings. The sentencing of the former Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, to seven years’ imprisonment is seen as an act of revenge, in order to prevent her from standing in the next parliamentary elections and the 2015 presidential election. These acts have been carried out against several members of the Ukrainian opposition, with the aim of eliminating all possible opponents. I believe that in order to deepen EU-Ukraine relations, the competent Ukrainian authorities need to re-establish the principle of the rule of law and transparency, fairness and impartiality in the trials against former members of the government. This is the only way in which it is possible to conclude the association agreement and move towards the integration of Ukraine into the EU. I am against the use of national institutions for partisan or political ends, which goes against fundamental rights and guarantees.

Motion for a resolution B7-0538/2011

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this motion for a resolution, as I believe that antimicrobial resistance is an important issue which is still largely unresolved, and has become a threat to public health in Europe and the rest of the world, resulting in longer and more complicated treatment, in lower quality of life, in greater risk of death – 25 000 patients die every year in the EU due to infections caused by resistant micro-organisms – and in increased health-care costs and productivity losses of at least EUR 1.5 billion per year. It is no coincidence that the World Health Organisation made it the theme of this year’s World Health Day. I note with concern that antimicrobial resistance is a growing threat to public health in Europe and the rest of the world, despite the measures adopted at EU and international level, so I would call for an intensification in the fight against resistance to antimicrobial agents in human medicine.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Antimicrobial resistance poses a serious threat to public health worldwide, involving more complicated treatment protocols, higher risks of death and additional costs to health-care systems. This phenomenon clearly has cross-border implications, and the occurrence of exceptional situations which would most probably not be manageable with the current resources and knowledge cannot be ruled out.

I therefore call on Member States to strengthen the global commitment to protecting the effectiveness of antimicrobial agents for the benefit of future generations. I also note with concern that the level of access to information on antimicrobial resistance and the impact on the consumption behaviour of citizens remain uneven across the EU, in particular with regard to the enforcement of the legislation on prescription-only use for antibiotics. I consider it necessary for there to be more research on new antimicrobials and possible alternatives under the EU’s Research Framework Programmes.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I supported a European Parliament resolution which draws attention to a public health fact: each year more than 25 000 deaths in the EU are linked to increasing antimicrobial resistance! We therefore call on the Member States to introduce new antibiotics, to improve vaccination coverage and to use antibiotics in livestock farming judiciously so as to limit antimicrobial resistance and therefore the risks of diseases being transmitted from animals to humans.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this resolution because I think that we need concerted action and a holistic approach to combat the threat posed to public health by antimicrobial resistance. The increase in the number of resistant micro-organisms is an alarming phenomenon which might lead to a serious crisis if appropriate measures are not taken in time to prevent and control it. This is an area in which everybody can make a contribution through responsible use of antibiotics only when recommended by a doctor and in strict compliance with prescribed doses and lengths of treatment. I would stress in this context the importance of public information campaigns on the use of antibiotics in order to limit the phenomenon of increasing antimicrobial resistance. At the same time, I wish to draw attention to the need to continue research and development with a view to finding solutions to these new challenges. In view of the cross-border implications of the crises caused by antimicrobial resistance, it is necessary to coordinate efforts at international level. In this context, I welcome the establishment of the EU-US Transatlantic task force on urgent antimicrobial resistance.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that it is necessary to create new and better antimicrobial agents and at the same time improve conservation of existing antibiotic resources. Each year in the European Union some 25 000 patients die of diseases caused by drug-resistant micro-organisms, and at least an additional EUR 1.5 billion is spent annually on health care as a result. People use antimicrobial medicines (substances that inhibit micro-organism growth and reproduction) because they are able to destroy bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms, but their inappropriate and irrational use kills vital cells and suppresses the resistance of the immune system. Indeed, the use of antimicrobial medicines in food-producing animals and their feed is a major factor in the spread of these agents through food products, resulting in a weakening of the antibacterial effect of medicines used in the future. The resistance of antimicrobial agents is an ever-increasing threat to public health not only in Europe but also globally.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the resolution on the phenomena of resistance to antibiotics. The resolution calls for support for innovation to facilitate the marketing of new, more effective antibiotics. It also calls for better vaccination coverage in both human and veterinary medicine. Finally, the resolution considers it necessary to encourage responsible use of antibiotics in livestock farming in order to reduce the risks of transmission from animals to humans.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Antimicrobial resistance refers to the inability of some antimicrobial agents, such as antibiotics, to work effectively on organisms, including bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms, which had previously been sensitive to them, as these micro-organisms have developed a resistance. Antimicrobial resistance has become a threat to public health in Europe and globally, resulting in longer, more complicated treatments, and in the growing risk that the organisms will not respond, with potentially fatal consequences: 25 000 people die each year in the EU from infections caused by resistant micro-organisms. This means action needs to be taken at global level as a matter of urgency, in terms of the more prudent prescription and use of antimicrobial agents, ensuring that these treatments are only followed when they are in fact necessary, and in terms of promoting the research and development of new antimicrobial agents, in conjunction with the pharmaceutical industry, as a way of treating patients infected with resistant micro-organisms.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. − (RO) Each year, 25 000 patients die in the EU from an infection caused by resistant micro-organisms. Given that antimicrobial resistance is an ever increasing threat to public health, I consider that, alongside the monitoring and surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, there should also be increased cooperation and funding to encourage research and development with regard to new antimicrobial agents.

Bearing in mind the inappropriate use of antimicrobial medicines, which creates favourable conditions for resistant micro-organisms, I support the request for action to significantly reduce the use of antibiotics.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) Antimicrobial resistance is an important and highly sensitive issue at EU level and has become a threat to public health in Europe, resulting in extra health care costs and enormous productivity losses. I believe that it is the duty of the European Commission to study the issue of inappropriate use and sales of antimicrobial agents with or without prescription throughout the chain, and implement a comprehensive long-term strategy to raise the awareness of all actors involved.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) ‘Ultra-resistant’ bacteria claim the lives of approximately 25 000 people in the European Union each year. To combat increasing resistance to these bacteria, stricter controls on the use of antimicrobial agents, such as antibiotics, are necessary. Half of Europeans incorrectly think that antibiotics can treat viral infections and colds. The European Union and the Member States must therefore improve the quality of information and organise prevention campaigns. Similarly, the risk of resistance to antibiotics being transmitted from animals to humans must be reduced by separating, to the extent possible, the active ingredients used in veterinary medicine and those used in human medicine. Finally, the use in agriculture of ‘last resource’ antibiotics targeting problematic human pathogens should be permitted ‘only within the framework of an authorisation, accompanied by resistance surveillance, preferably on a case-by-case basis’.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the resolution on antimicrobial resistance, which threatens public health in Europe and worldwide, as I believe the Commission should table a legislative framework for action against antimicrobial resistance without delay. Prudent use needs to be made of antimicrobial agents, both for humans and animals, ensuring that they are only used when really needed, and new antimicrobial agents and alternatives need to be researched and developed.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Further to questions for oral answer pursuant to Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure, a motion for a resolution of the European Parliament was tabled on the issue of the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance. Most of the EU public are not aware of the harmful impact that the indiscriminate use of antibiotics could have on public health, for both humans and animals. Several scientific studies warn of the risk to public health of certain bacterial strains found in food and food-producing animals. The EU institutions have drawn the attention of all those in positions of responsibility to the ‘prudent use of antimicrobial agents in human medicine’, as these are able to destroy or prevent the growth of bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms. Given the importance and relevance of this matter, and in view of the fact that the issue of antimicrobial resistance is still largely unresolved, I welcome the tabling of this motion for a resolution, and I hope that it will contribute to improving the quality of life of the EU public.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Widespread use of antibiotics and increasing resistance to antimicrobial agents is certainly worrying. I voted for this resolution because it warns that this represents a major public health problem, and calls for greater prudence and vigilance, highlighting the need for more research into developing new antimicrobial agents and alternatives. However, even more than developing new agents, it is important to understand and attack the causes – also addressed in the resolution – of the development of such resistance, and to respond to the lack of widespread information about this issue. We believe it is important to inform the public and raise awareness of the effects of antibiotics and their use, as mentioned in the resolution. However, there is also a need for real investment in prevention and primary health care, which is today under fierce attack and is rapidly being devalued, with policies that have been leading to divestment in and state disengagement with public health. Profound change in modes of agricultural and livestock production is also crucial, combating intensive production that use large amounts of agrochemicals, including antimicrobial agents. Practical responses are also needed to tackle the raft of problems associated with resistance to antibiotics. We regret the adoption of the amendments proposed by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), which have weakened the resolution in this area.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing − (SK) Antimicrobial agents are substances which are able to destroy or prevent the growth of bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms. Thereby they have played a significant role in improving public health by helping to reduce the number of deaths from diseases and infections which were previously incurable or fatal. Their use has resulted in certain micro-organisms previously sensitive to these antimicrobial agents developing so-called ‘antimicrobial resistance’. In humans, this is often the result of incorrect treatment or the use of excessive doses of drugs containing antibiotics. This constitutes a major threat to public health in Europe and throughout the world, and, as a result, treatment is becoming more prolonged and more complex. It significantly reduces quality of life while the risk of fatal outcomes increases and the health-care costs rise. That is why I believe that we must take urgent steps to prevent or even reverse further growth in the number of resistant micro-organisms. This means that patients themselves should exercise caution when using the available antibiotics and carefully keep to the dosage, the length of treatment and try to use them in combination with other medication. The Member States must increase awareness of the threat to public health posed by antimicrobial resistance and take appropriate measures to encourage the more responsible use of antibiotics.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Around 25 000 people die each year in the EU from infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria. Increasing resistance to antibiotics is not only a medical problem, but also a socio-economic one: the price we pay in Europe for the inappropriate use of these drugs can actually be quantified in productivity losses of at least EUR 1.5 billion per year.

In the light of this growing public-health threat, we urgently need to take cognisance of this on a global level.

I think it is essential to increase understanding of antibiotics among EU citizens and make sure that they are used more responsibly. Along these lines, the European Antibiotic Awareness Day held on 18 November is a laudable initiative that reminds us each year of the importance of using antibiotics only when necessary and above all with a prescription from a doctor who will check their effectiveness.

We must also promote careful use of antimicrobial agents in both human and veterinary medicine. However, I think it is rash to ask for the prophylactic use of antibiotics in farming to be completely eliminated, since these drugs are crucial for controlling infectious illness and have also made a significant contribution to improving livestock.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because it notes with concern that antimicrobial resistance is an ever-increasing threat to public health in Europe and worldwide, despite the actions taken at European and international level. I believe that a further intensification of the fight against resistance to antimicrobial agents in human medicines is needed, focusing on, in the following order of priority: the prudent use of antimicrobial agents both for humans and for animals, ensuring that they are only used when effectively needed for actual treatment of disease, with the correct dosage, dose intervals and duration; the monitoring and surveillance of antimicrobial resistance; the need for research into, and the development of, new antimicrobial agents and alternatives; and links with measures to combat resistance to antimicrobial agents in veterinary medicines, animal feeding stuffs and crop-growing. The Commission is called on to propose without delay a legislative framework for action against antimicrobial resistance, by promoting ‘responsible use’ initiatives and supporting dissemination of, and information about, such initiatives.

  Christa Klaß (PPE), in writing. − (DE) Antibiotics are very special drugs. We are very dependent on their efficacy. They must be handled sparingly and responsibly if they are to be effective. Antibiotics are needed in both human and veterinary medicine. For this reason, our most important objective must be to maintain the effectiveness of antimicrobial agents in fighting illnesses in humans and animals. Sustainability can only be achieved by closer examination of the inherent dangers and risks. Innovation and development must result in a continuous supply of new agents. In May, we passed the resolution in relation to resistance to antibiotics in animals. Today’s decision is a supplementary point and is intended to focus on the danger posed to public health by antimicrobial resistance. An information campaign and greater international cooperation are essential.

The situation in relation to resistance, even after approval, must be continuously evaluated on a uniform basis throughout the EU. When animals fall ill, they have a right to be treated. For this reason, it must be possible, under strict regulation and in special cases, also to treat sick animals with antibiotics.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution and particularly welcome paragraph 20 which states ‘Considers the decline in research and development to be the result of a market failure and calls on the Commission to make proposals, via regulatory pathways and other types of measures, to create or improve incentives for the pharmaceutical industry to intensify investment in research into, and development of, new antimicrobial agents and possible alternatives’. I also voted for amendment 7, which would have strengthened this paragraph further but was unfortunately defeated.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. - (CS) One of the main tasks that the Community should fulfil is protecting the health of citizens. In this context, the amendments tightening up the definition and the conditions for using antibiotics, particularly in agriculture, constitute substantial progress, in my opinion. I welcome the emphasis on prevention, including prevention in the area of human health care. The amendments also focus on ensuring the responsible development of new medicines, while at the same time allowing antibiotics to be used in justifiable cases. It is right that the combined resolution emphasises a gradual reduction in the use of antibiotics in agriculture, and their gradual replacement with good hygiene practices and measures in the area of bio-security.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of the resolution. Antimicrobial resistance is an important and largely unresolved issue that now represents a public-health threat in Europe. It is good news that the Commission will guarantee the availability of adequate financial and human resources.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − Whilst this report has very many good aspects, I did not support Paragraph 28, which calls on the Commission to make legislative proposals to phase out the prophylactic use of antibiotics in livestock farming. I believe at this moment it is a step too far to call for the phasing out of prophylactics without a clear understanding of the implication or alternatives in place. Because Paragraph 28 was adopted, I could not support the text of the final report, and voted against.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Antibiotics are antimicrobial agents that are only effective against bacteria, which is why they have played an important role in improving public health, because it was possible to use these agents to reduce the number of deaths due to previously incurable or fatal diseases and infections. The increased consumption of antibiotics means that resistance is also on the rise, which has led to a threat to public health worldwide. Another problem is to be found in livestock husbandry, where antibiotics are frequently used, despite their prohibition as growth promoters, which can lead to resistance in human beings.

I abstained from the vote on the resolution because I believe that the public generally needs more information about the consumption of medication. Pharmaceuticals companies in particular should be required to think not just of their own profits, but also of the health of the public at large.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because resistance to antimicrobial agents is growing in the world, affecting not just humans but also animals. This is a consequence of frequent or inappropriate use of antibiotics, and is a particularly sensitive problem requiring a coordinated decision at EU level. Only through joint efforts will we prevent infection from spreading and reduce the need for antibiotics.

At present innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is dominated by the patent-oriented scientific research and technological development model, which has resulted in market failures and a reduction in scientific research and development. Consequently, EU-wide innovation prizes or other measures to intensify investment in research are needed.

We must also ensure that antimicrobials are used in accordance with strict requirements and only when necessary. Given the increasing resistance of antimicrobial agents, the effectiveness of treatment with antimicrobials is falling, morbidity and mortality are growing, and health-care costs are rising.

To ensure that the said objectives are achieved effectively and as quickly as possible, an integrated monitoring system for antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial use in Europe should be established to prevent risks to human health.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because I share the concern about the growing resistance of pathogens to antimicrobial agents. Incorrect, unnecessary and often excessive use of antimicrobials and the use of antibiotics to treat humans or in animal husbandry allow bacteria to develop resistance to these agents. We are thus creating a time bomb which could send us back to the time before antibiotics had been discovered. In those days a simple cold could lead to a person’s death. I support the call to increase funding for the development of new antibiotics. However, the most important thing is to educate the public on the problems of using antimicrobial agents at the wrong time and not as they were intended to be used. In particular, I would urge for practices to be changed in animal husbandry, where antibiotics are currently used as a preventive rather than a curative measure. Disease prevention comes from improving the conditions in which animals are kept and not from feeding them drugs. Certain types of antimicrobial agents for which no possible replacement has yet been found should be completely banned from being used in animal husbandry.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution on the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance, as it is important to act on this serious public health problem. However, I regret the position taken by the rapporteur in paragraph 28, which is excessive; too broad and exhaustive. It makes no distinction between the antibiotics currently being used in the sector, it does not present alternative to phasing them out, and it seeks the complete elimination of prophylactic antibiotics in livestock farming, without regard to the negative impact that this would have on livestock farming in Europe. I voted against this paragraph.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. − (RO) Antimicrobial resistance is an important, largely unresolved issue which has become a threat to public health in Europe and globally, resulting in longer, more complicated treatments, a decrease in the quality of life, a greater risk of deaths (25 000 patients die each year in the EU from infections caused by resistant micro-organisms), extra health-care costs and productivity losses of at least EUR 1.5 billion per year.

The Special Eurobarometer of April 2010 reveals that many misconceptions exist about antibiotics and their effects, with 53% of Europeans still believing that antibiotics kill viruses and 47% believing that they are effective against colds and flu.

It is therefore important to have a well-functioning monitoring and surveillance system in place in order to gather reliable and comparable data on the susceptibility of pathogens to antimicrobial agents and the infections caused by them, and the Commission should propose without delay a harmonised monitoring system for antimicrobial resistance. There is a need for more research on new antimicrobials and possible alternatives under the EU’s Research Framework Programmes and for cooperation with the WHO to be strengthened.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of antimicrobial agents is to destroy or prevent the growth of bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms. In the history of science, this has been one of the major triumphs in reducing diseases and infections, which were deadly until the emergence of these techniques. Today, however, the problem of antimicrobial resistance is emerging, caused by, inter alia, the excessive or uncontrolled use of medicines on both humans and animals. On the other hand, while the pharmaceutical industry has been constantly developing antibiotics, it has been developing fewer antimicrobial agents. A holistic approach is therefore needed, involving not only public awareness policies, but also the development of new techniques enabling the risks resulting from this to public health to be combated, as well as the adoption by the supervisory authorities of a policy of active surveillance. I voted for the motion for a resolution because it addresses these issues.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) On 8 June 1999, the Council adopted a resolution on antimicrobial resistance. This is a major public health issue, which causes 25 000 deaths a year. Twelve years later, the problem remains unresolved and is still a concern for the European institutions; today this has led Parliament to adopt a resolution stressing the need to be vigilant in the face of the proliferation of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, which can spread among humans through the consumption of contaminated food. I welcome the fact that the Members of the European Parliament have highlighted the link between the use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine and increased resistance in humans, which would naturally justify gradually phasing out the prophylactic use of antibiotics in the livestock farming sector. Obviously, therapeutic purposes should be given priority over prophylactic use during animal transportation, vaccination or stress.

That is the message delivered by the major microbiologists who held a conference in Chicago last September and who, faced with an explosion of resistant cases, for example in chickens sold for retail, have recommended restricting the use of antibiotics considered vital to human health, such as flouroquinolone and the latest generations of cephalosporins.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Antimicrobial resistance in humans is increasing. This is due, on the one hand, to the excessive and/or inappropriate absorption of antibiotics during medical treatment and, on the other, the indirect absorption of such products through those ingested by livestock. This antimicrobial resistance is a major challenge for our health, since these antibiotics have less and less of a curative effect. This resolution calls for the intensification of research into new antimicrobial agents, the adoption of a legislative framework for action against antimicrobial resistance, and large-scale prevention policies in all the Member States to raise people’s awareness of the sensible and effective use of these agents by European citizens. These are points I support. I therefore welcome the adoption of this text in the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The EP: 1. Notes with concern that antimicrobial resistance is an ever increasing threat to public health in Europe and worldwide, despite the actions taken at European and international level; 2. Calls for a further intensification of the fight against resistance to antimicrobial agents in human medicines, focusing on, in the following order of priority: – the prudent use of antimicrobial agents both for humans and for animals, ensuring that they are only used when effectively needed for actual treatment of disease, with the correct dosage, dose intervals and duration, – the monitoring and surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, – the need for research into, and the development of, new antimicrobial agents and alternatives, – links with measures to combat resistance to antimicrobial agents in veterinary medicines, animal feeding stuffs and crop-growing.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report deals with a particularly sensitive topic, and that is the need to pay particular attention to the use of antibiotics. A medical prescription is needed to obtain antibiotics, but once a product, which normally contains more tablets than the user needs, has been obtained, the rest remain available.

Often, people use antibiotics inappropriately, and this kind of common usage is building up microbial resistance to them, rendering them useless in some cases and requiring a greater quantity to be used in others. We must therefore educate patients to use these drugs sensibly. They must be administered only where there is a genuine need; only the correct number of tablets must be sold and use must be as indicated on the prescription.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I supported this proposal for a resolution because there is an urgent need in the EU for a legislative framework for action against antimicrobial resistance. In recent years, the misuse of antimicrobial medicines has increased the number and variety of resistant micro-organisms. We face the risk of some diseases becoming uncontrollable, and we must therefore act as quickly as possible to promote ‘responsible use’ initiatives and invest in the research and development of new antimicrobial agents and alternatives, but also give the necessary attention to livestock farming methods – another source of the development of human resistance to medicines.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Antimicrobial resistance is a growing public health threat in Europe and the rest of the world, in spite of the measures adopted at EU and international level. The fight against resistance to microbial agents in human medicine therefore needs to be intensified. Microbial agents can destroy or prevent the growth of bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms, so they play a major role in improving public health and helping to reduce the number of deaths from previously incurable or fatal diseases and infections. However, their use has resulted in certain micro-organisms previously sensitive to these antimicrobial agents developing so-called ‘antimicrobial resistance’. The Commission should propose a legislative framework for this issue, promoting ‘responsible use’ initiatives and supporting the dissemination of, and information about, such initiatives. Only the prudent use of microbial agents, with greater monitoring and surveillance of antimicrobial resistance and encouragement of research into the development of alternatives can promote an approach that is able to address this problem.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on antimicrobial resistance, a threat to public health, because this issue affects a growing number of people and involves high costs for public health-care systems. According to the 2009 report of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), over 25 000 patients die each year in the EU from an infection caused by bacteria resistant to many drugs.

I voted in favour of Amendment 1 because, although there are no clear links between the use of antibiotics for veterinary purposes and the development of resistance in humans, antimicrobial resistance affects both humans and animals and potentially can be transmitted in both directions. Additional efforts are therefore needed to improve agricultural practices so as to minimise the risks associated with the use of antibiotics for veterinary purposes and the development of resistance in humans.

I voted in favour of Amendments 2 and 3 because I do not consider that existing effective treatment options should be restricted, and I think that the use of so-called ‘last resort’ antibiotics targeting problematic human pathogens should be permitted in agriculture only under authorised circumstances and in combination with the monitoring of resistance, preferably on a case-by-case basis.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR), in writing. - (CS) I supported the motion for a resolution on the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance. I did this because I firmly believe that we must end the regular prophylactic use of antibiotics in the husbandry and treatment of livestock. Instead of this it is desirable to use preventive measures such as proper hygiene, and the suitable housing and handling of animals. This is also the view of the World Health Organisation, which this year showed that the massive use of antibiotics in agriculture is contributing to greater antibiotic resistance.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) Public health is increasingly threatened by resistance to antimicrobial agents. This motion for a resolution calls on the Commission immediately to establish a legal framework that will require a responsible attitude to the use of these agents and contribute to greater public awareness through information initiatives.

Furthermore, it demands a fully functional system of data input controls, so as to obtain reliable data in relation to the sensitivity to antimicrobial agents of pathogens that cause infection from which trend analyses can be obtained, allowing an early warning system to be established. After all, in recent years, there is evidence of a declining trend in research into new antimicrobial agents, despite the fact that the need to discover alternatives is particularly acute in the light of current developments.

10. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13.40 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: LIBOR ROUČEK
Vice-President

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

12. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law(debate)

12.1. Tibet, in particular self-immolation by nuns and monks

  President. − The first item is the debate on Tibet, in particular self-immolation by nuns and monks⁽¹⁾.

  Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Mr President, I wanted to let you know that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has not tabled a resolution on Tibet and will not take part in the votes. This is not because we are against what is said in the resolution, but because we believe this to be a particularly inopportune moment, given that there is a chance for direct dialogue with China on these issues, be that in the context of the EU-China summit or the EU-China High Level Political Parties and Groups Forum, to be held at the beginning of November by all the political groups here.

We therefore consider that an urgent resolution on this issue could create an interference, which would certainly not provide a solution to the problem, and that nothing is better than direct dialogue.

  President. − Mr Posselt, do you have a point of order?

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have just one question for Ms De Keyser: why did your group vote in favour last week and on Monday when we placed this on the agenda? At the time, we were still expecting a summit to be held this week between the EU and China and wanted to refer to this expressly.

  Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Mr President, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament certainly did not vote in favour. It was in the minority. Our group’s position was clear from the outset. We then went on to discuss the issue of deciding whether or not, given that we were in the minority, we would table a separate resolution despite everything. Finally, the S&D Group took the decision not to table a separate resolution.

  Eva Lichtenberger, author. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my colleague from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament says that this is the wrong time to discuss this issue. We have been confronted with a deterioration of the situation regarding human rights in Tibet since 2008. Gradually things are getting worse, difficulties are becoming more dramatic, and Tibet is becoming increasingly inaccessible to journalists, tourists and people who want to see for themselves the truth behind this situation.

The situation in Tibet is worse than ever and the fact that people are prepared to burn themselves to death is a sign of just how desperate the situation is for this minority in Tibet’s mountain region. The deterioration of the human rights situation has not been taken really seriously by the international community. These cases of self-immolation are acts of absolute desperation, the last resort. I am convinced that this should be reason enough for us to issue clear signals during our future meetings with the Chinese representatives and to speak out for an improvement in the situation in Tibet, for the implementation of autonomy with rights for the minority, something that is enshrined in the Chinese constitution, but not honoured.

It is for this reason that I cannot understand why someone would say we should not broach the subject now, suggesting instead that we should wait for the situation to deteriorate even more dramatically. We are duty-bound to broach this matter in our talks with China. I would urge you, Baroness Ashton, to address this issue in the strongest possible terms.

  Marek Henryk Migalski, author. − (PL) Mr President, as with Ms Lichtenberger, I too do not understand why the Socialists today neither want to take this vote nor participate in this resolution. There is no such thing as a bad moment for asserting human rights or remembering those who, in an act of desperation, commit self-immolation. This is especially true since it is a very good resolution, that is to say, it calls on the Chinese authorities to put a stop to repressions and to release prisoners or give them a fair and just trial. The resolution speaks in defence of the nuns and monks from the Kirti Monastery. I definitely cannot understand how it can trouble anyone. What is happening in China is, regrettably, a long-term problem, and has not arisen only in the last few days or weeks.. It is a situation in which human rights are permanently violated. Where, if not in this House, should there be a voice that condemns those practices and stands against them? This is why I believe that firstly, we, here, must speak with one voice – it is a pity that our voice is not united; secondly, we must urge the representatives both of the Commission and the Council to raise these issues and discuss them in talks with our Chinese partners at the forthcoming summit in Cannes.

  Kristiina Ojuland, author. − Mr President, despite the fact that the Socialists are ignoring this resolution in this House, the Liberals think it is very important because the blatantly restrictive situation in Tibet, in particular in Ngaba county, has this year driven ten Tibetans to self-immolation. These desperate acts of protest, which have been provoked by the increasingly suppressive policies of Beijing, require a global diplomatic intervention.

There is no time to lose. We therefore call for the human rights situation in Tibet to be addressed with the President of the People’s Republic of China at the upcoming G20 Summit on 3 and 4 November in Cannes. I trust that President Barroso and President Van Rompuy will convey our unequivocal concern to President Hu Jintao. Human rights are not a matter of convenience but of principle.

The High Representative and the EEAS have been tasked with raising the human rights issue at the next EU-China Summit and constantly monitor the human rights situation in China. Every opportunity must be used to remind Beijing of our ceaseless concern over the ongoing human rights violations in Tibet.

The Chinese authorities may place fire extinguishers on the streets to prevent self-immolations, but they are unable to smother the flame of freedom in the hearts of the people of Tibet and silence their call for meaningful autonomy.

  Véronique De Keyser (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, I have come to the conclusion that this is a resolution against the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The S&D Group has always voted for resolutions on Tibet. We have also tabled some. The issue here is not Tibet, but how to make sure a message gets heard by the right people. In November, we will have the opportunity to do so during the direct dialogue we will hold with China. I have been to China, where we brought this matter up with the Chinese. I will not tolerate people saying we do not want to address this issue. We believe that an urgent humanitarian resolution might not be the best option at the moment. It is our right to choose the way in which we deliver a message on human rights.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I wanted to know whether the same rule that applies to me – I raised a blue card earlier to address a question to Ms De Keyser, which I was unable to do – applies to Ms De Keyser, too. She was given 30 seconds to reply to a question just now.

If, on a point of order raised by Ms De Keyser, one can raise the blue card, I raised it, but I was told that I was unable to ask a question, whereas now Ms De Keyser has been given time to reply to another question. I wanted to know whether the same rule applies to the two of us, or whether there are two different rules.

  President. − Mr Silvestris, we are all subject to the same rules and I also made it absolutely clear to Ms De Keyser because she raised the blue card. I understood she would be asking Ms Ojuland a question; that was not the case. So I just made it absolutely clear that the blue-card procedure should not be used to make a point of order.

  Thomas Mann, author. – (DE) Mr President, I strongly agree with the three previous speakers, but not with Ms De Keyser. This is absolutely the right moment for a debate of this kind.

The situation in the Kirti monastery in Tibet is still alarming. Nine monks and one nun have burned themselves to death in an act of desperation. They wanted to force us to sit up and take notice, so that we would finally discuss the issue, as we are doing today, rather than looking the other way. Eyewitnesses have reported how the Chinese security forces have surrounded the temple, blocking food and water supplies and transporting the monks for so-called rehabilitation. In April I wrote to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission on behalf of the Tibet intergroup, calling for the EU to work to bring an end to this untenable situation. The service took action and received a response from the Chinese Embassy in May. This stated that the monks were solely responsible for the social unrest.

It is obvious, however, that the value of religious freedom and human rights is still not understood in China. We need a detailed investigation into what has happened, including the fate of the hundreds of monks who have been transported to places unknown. Dialogue must finally begin with the representatives of the Dalai Lama and the topic of Tibet must be right at the top of the agenda when summit meetings are held between the EU and China, something that can no longer be put off. The cries of the monks must not go unheard. This self-sacrifice must not be in vain.

  Bernd Posselt, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, in today’s papers we read of new cases of self-immolation in China. The incidents we are criticising in our resolution have happened in the last three months. Today should have seen the EU-China summit. China’s President is to visit Europe next week to meet with the G20. When will the time be right to address this issue? I am very much reminded of the situation prior to 1989. At the time there were many people here – myself among them – who campaigned for human rights behind the Iron Curtain. Some people again and again stated that it was not the right time for such campaigns. If we had listened to those people, then the time still would not be right.

For this reason, I would call on the Social Democrats, whom I regard as an important and constructive group in this House, to return to our common cause and to join us in clearly supporting human rights, irrespective of who is violating them and the timing of such violations.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the fact that several Tibetans have set themselves on fire tells us about the desperate situation in that region.

The people are protesting against the Chinese authorities because the Chinese are preventing them from practising their religion. Overall, the Chinese authorities should change their policy towards the Tibetans, so that this is in accordance with human rights. Only then can a meaningful dialogue between the Chinese and the elected Tibetan Government emerge and a non-violent solution be reached.

I realise that the European Union’s power to influence China’s policies is limited. Nevertheless, it is crucial that the EU stand firmly behind universal human rights. I urge the High Representative to keep this in mind in future meetings with Chinese representatives, including in discussions on trade issues.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I am very pleased that we are once again addressing the issue of human rights today. It is a pity, however, that more Members of the House have not decided to take part in this debate. This makes it all the more rewarding to see so many young faces in the gallery here today. I would like to welcome the Weinheim and Kösen student corps to the gallery today.

When people start setting themselves on fire, then patently they no longer have anything to lose. This is an act of absolute desperation. The numerous cases of self-immolation by Buddhist monks and nuns in recent weeks should give us pause for thought. These people want nothing more than to live their spirituality in peace. However, brutal raids by the Chinese security forces, random imprisonment and transportation of monks, a permanent military presence on a full battle footing makes such a religious life impossible in practice. Furthermore, journalists and foreigners are prohibited from entering these regions.

We therefore urgently need to appoint a Special Representative for Tibet who will also be able to travel to the sensitive regions. The ultimate aim is to restore dialogue between China’s state authorities and the envoys of the Dalai Lama in relation to the establishment of a genuine, serious autonomous status for Tibet within the People’s Republic of China.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, to many of us, what is going on in Tibet is unimaginable. Cases of self-immolation are being committed in protest against the suppression of religious freedoms by the Chinese authorities. As a result of these horrendous acts of despair, five people have died, while the condition of the remaining four is unknown. The people of Tibet are demanding freedom of religion and the return of the Dalai Lama. This year, many monks from the Kirti Monastery have been detained and sent by the Chinese authorities for what is called retraining. After taking part in peaceful protests numerous people have been imprisoned.

These recent cases are evidence of the intensity of the despair experienced by the people of Tibet in their fight for freedom – which is by no means a privilege but a right of every human being. Self-immolations are a form of protest and a cry for freedom, and the European Union must heed this cry. Parliament is a venue for speaking, not for staying silent.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE) . – (RO) In Tibet, Tibetan monks are subject to arbitrary arrest and are committing self-immolation in protest. On 25 October, Dawa Tsering, aged 38, set fire to himself during a religious ceremony in Kardze. Since March of this year, nine young Tibetans have committed self-immolation in Eastern Tibet, and seven such cases were reported in September.

And this is not the time to discuss the situation in Tibet? I believe this is precisely the time to discuss this situation, and we would be cowards if we did not discuss it. Because people are dying now. When should we discuss it? Right now, when these things are happening in Tibet. I also say that we should discuss it every day and say: another day has passed on which the Chinese authorities did nothing, two days have passed on which the Chinese authorities did nothing. We should discuss this situation absolutely every day. Monks are being arbitrarily detained, the police are permanently inside the monasteries, and the number of programmes for the patriotic education of the Tibetan population are increasing from one day to the next. There is tension in the region, and this causes Buddhist monks to resort to the gesture of self-immolation as a sign of protest.

I call on the Council and the Commission to make these issues a priority in relations with the Chinese Government, with the main objective of achieving real autonomy in Tibet and putting an end to repression.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, for the umpteenth time in this Chamber, we – more or less the same group of people – are discussing the violations of human rights in China. We are discussing how their culture – a source of inspiration for the entire world – is being destroyed, how their religion – a source of inspiration for many people the world over – is being destroyed, how Tibet is being destroyed. We are saying that the Chinese hold human rights in total disregard and that they are watching us in this empty Chamber, as we discuss, for the umpteenth time, whether it is worth it, whether this is the right time, when we are negotiating trade and finance issues and wearing kid gloves as we tactfully nurture our good relations with China – while the monks cannot be more vociferous in pleading with us to be clear and forthright, to make genuine efforts in calling attention to the horrific things happening there. Perhaps this is becoming embarrassing, perhaps it is beginning to undermine any capacity of ours to act on behalf of those people there who care about dignity – theirs and, after all, ours, for how we respond to them is a test of our own dignity.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since violent protests rocked Tibet in March 2008, repression has intensified. One of the places most marked by the intensity of repression has been the Kirti monastery, in the Chinese region of Sichuan, where almost all of the immolations, which we rightly mention in our resolution, have taken place.

The first took place precisely on the third anniversary of the 2008 insurrection, and involved a 20-year-old monk. From that day to this, besides a total lack of progress in the dialogue with the Dalai Lama and the international community, Beijing has imposed even tougher monitoring measures, an actual military curfew that has left the Kirti monastery half-empty (the number of monks has fallen from 2 500 to 600) and under round-the-clock surveillance by Chinese police.

Following the first death, the authorities have punished dozens of monks with prison sentences of various lengths, and have sentenced three of them to 10 or 13 years for having helped a fellow monk to sacrifice himself. The monk’s relatives have also been imprisoned or interrogated, while a growing sense of terror has spread through Tibet. I believe these reasons are sufficient to vote for and adopt a resolution of this Parliament.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, as has already been stated here, China is a super power and for that reason is very important for the Member States of the European Union. I know that, when it comes to human rights violations in China, some people would say we should leave the Chinese in peace. They have a different culture and do not share our value system, hence we should not seek to impose our values on them. When, however, we find that people are voluntarily setting themselves on fire, when young people of 18 and 19 years of age who simply want to live according to their faith have no other choice than to take their own lives, then it is no longer possible to remain silent.

The fact is that the representatives of the Dalai Lama are constantly calling on our support, placing their hope in the European Parliament, even though they know that even if we debate the issue here, nothing will happen and nothing will change for a long time. All we can do is repeatedly point out the injustices happening there and call on anyone who has contact with China to keep putting this issue on the agenda. After all, I believe one thing is quite clear: if everyone brings up this issue again and again, then China will be unable to ignore it and something must eventually happen.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, actually we were told during the Olympic Games that the situation in China, and particularly in Tibet, would improve after these events. The truth is that this has not happened, and the situation right now in Tibet is at least the same as, if not worse than, it was before. The example we are now putting on the table – self-immolation – is the result of frustration at the lack of dialogue and the lack of willingness on the part of the Chinese to improve the situation.

This is why we in the international community have to speak out and remind all those who promised that the situation would improve after the Olympic Games that this has not happened. I was shocked when I saw the images of eight monks and one nun who self-immolated, but I also want to stress that there are still 300 monks whose whereabouts and condition are not known. So there are plenty of things that we have to ask the Chinese authorities, and the only way we can do this is by using this Chamber, this opportunity to show our concern about all these issues.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, there are shocking reports now of these eight monks and one nun self-immolating in China’s Sichuan province. In each case, seven of which have occurred in the last month, the self-immolation was undertaken in protest at China’s restrictive policies in Tibet, and in particular over the 300 monks who were taken away from the Kirti monastery in April. Tibetans are still without any news of their current whereabouts and well-being.

With the Dalai Lama now in exile for more than 45 years, the EU must urge the Government of the People’s Republic of China not only to provide information on the whereabouts of the missing monks but also, in the longer term, to take measures to ensure that the distinct cultural, religious and national identity of the six million Tibetan people is protected and preserved.

We urge the Chinese authorities to ensure that those Tibetans who have survived their self-immolations are now allowed to recover in hospital and receive the medical treatment that they require, to take steps to lift the siege on the Ngaba region, removing the heavy security presence in the area and the military personnel posted around the Kirti monastery, and, lastly and most importantly, to suspend the implementation of Beijing’s repressive religious control regulations.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). - (CS) Mr President, I would like to express my great sorrow over the fact that brutal persecution by the ruthless Chinese government is driving monks and nuns to self-immolation, as they have no other way of fighting this oppression. Today’s resolution, through which we respond to these acts of suicide, has a strong personal resonance for me. In my own country, Czechoslovakia, young people also set fire to themselves in 1969, in protest at the occupation and oppression of the regime. The legacy of Jan Palach and Jan Zajíc was finally fulfilled after two apparently hopeless decades. I hope that the sacrifice of the Buddhist monks and nuns was also not in vain, that people will be able to live freely in their country, and that their country is delivered from its occupiers. In the meantime, we in the EU must insist in all circumstances and in all negotiations with the Chinese government on the relaxing of political and anti-religious oppression and the release of political prisoners, and also on autonomy for Tibet.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I confess to not understanding much of the criticism and many of the remarks coming from some Members. Some of them even seem offensive towards the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. You do not have any grounds for casting doubt on our intentions with regard to the rights of people around the world, starting with Tibet and going on to other parts of the world with which we have again been concerned in the last few days.

We have always stood up for human rights. The issue that Ms De Keyser has raised is a problem of a different order; it is a problem of political timeliness. In other words, whether a position taken at this time by Parliament would help or hinder the process intended to resolve the dreadful problem of the Tibetan monks, who have a right to express their opinions and to live in decent conditions in their country, in a full democracy. There is therefore no doubt that restrictions exist.

The issue, however, lies elsewhere: it is how not to turn good intentions and positive wishes, such as those that motivate you, into an obstacle to the process of resolving this problem. That is all. As for the rest, we do not disagree on the fact that human rights must be guaranteed at all times. Just beware of timing.

  Peter Šťastný (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the number and rate at which nuns and monks in Tibet are setting fire to themselves has reached alarming proportions. As someone who grew up under a communist dictatorship it is clear to me that the main reason for these tragedies is the atmosphere of fear and the lack of freedom imposed and maintained by the Chinese communist regime. As one of the oldest cultures in the world, Tibet deserves a lot more respect, freedom and independence than it is currently being given by the government in Beijing.

The European Union and the Parliament must keep up the pressure on China to open bilateral negotiations with the representatives of Tibet headed by the Dalai Lama. Even just a hint in this direction would significantly reduce the tension and give all Tibetans some hope. The benefits of such a decision would be immediately felt throughout the region of Tibet and would consign these tragic self-immolations to history.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, in these cases of self-immolation, a love of freedom has taken shape, for which there is no higher price: human life, which is unique. This message cannot be ignored.

China’s tightened state control, and, in particular, the new laws on the practice of religion, which came into effect in 2007, have resulted in this situation. However, China’s response to the protests has also been violent and merciless. A Chinese court has sentenced three Tibetan monks to prison, accusing them of the deliberate murder of their friends, who had committed self-immolation.

We must be all just as shocked at self-immolation as a way of standing up for human rights. China has ratified international agreements, pursuant to which it should at least guarantee freedom of religion and other fundamental human rights for all its citizens. It should, however, also avoid any measures that threaten the Tibetan language, culture, religion, heritage and environment. Without international assistance, the voice of the Tibetans is easy to silence.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, EU-China relations have developed positively during 2011. Our strategic partnership has strengthened in many areas. However, there are still sensitive issues where open disagreements occur from time to time, and Tibet is certainly one of these.

Since the unrest in Tibet in March 2008, this House has discussed the evolving situation on many occasions. While the EU does not question that Tibet is an integral part of China, at the same time we are greatly concerned about the lack of progress on the ground, as is illustrated by the recent distressing cases of self-immolation of ten monks and nuns.

The EU raised its concerns regarding Tibet at the last EU-China human rights dialogue on 16 June. The EU focused on increasing legal restrictions on religious practice in Tibet, limitations on the teaching of the Tibetan language, the ongoing official campaign against Tibetan intellectuals and cultural figures, the harsh measures taken against any Tibetan attempting to protest against official policies and the impact on Tibetan culture of the mass forced resettlement of nomads. Furthermore, the EU expressed its anxiety regarding the situation at the Kirti monastery, and in particular at the self-immolation of Phuntsok Jarutsang, and called on the Chinese authorities to allow all Tibetans, including monks, to exercise their cultural and religious rights without hindrance, and to refrain from the use of force against peaceful protest.

The Chinese authorities dismissed the EU’s concerns and emphasised that Chinese policies in Tibet had led to economic development and enormous benefits. China claimed that the series of self-immolations is instigated by forces that ‘want to destabilise Tibet’.

While taking note of the Chinese position, the EU can only conclude that the growing number of Tibetan monks choosing to take such tragic steps demonstrates the profound depth of feeling among many Tibetans that their religious, linguistic and cultural rights are not being respected.

The EU acknowledges the priority the Chinese leadership gives to maintaining territorial integrity and economic growth in minority areas such as Tibet. However, as the recent tragic events show all too clearly, economic development is not a panacea. We therefore strongly encourage China to create conditions which will allow the Tibetan people to fully exercise their political, religious and cultural rights in line with the Chinese constitution and the Chinese legal provisions on local autonomy.

Furthermore, we hope that the dialogue between the envoys of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government – which, regrettably, has been frozen – will resume soon, since we strongly believe that only this dialogue can lead to positive results, by aiming at resolving outstanding issues in a peaceful and sustainable way for Tibet.

Finally, I want to reassure this Chamber that the EU will continue to follow up this important matter in all other appropriate meetings with the Chinese authorities, including the next session of the EU-China human rights dialogue.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The world sees the European Union as a federation of states that stand up for human rights worldwide and emphasise the importance of the principles of the rule of law and respect for human dignity. It has earned these laudatory epithets by raising its voice against human rights violations across the globe, and by engaging in commercial relations declaredly influenced by the attitudes of countries to the prevailing human rights regime.

We know that China is one of the most important trading partners of the Western World. It is in the interest of European countries that this partnership continue to be similarly fruitful for both parties in the future. There is nothing new about Chinese state policy concerning Tibet and the repeated disregard shown for the rights of the Tibetan people. The self-sacrifice and suicides of Tibetan monks and nuns are a cry for help addressed to the entire world. It is a cry for help because it would seem as though the world, and its champion of human rights, the European Union, did not hear their previous signals and less drastic ways of protest. But we did hear them, and we hear them now, too, and yet other than debates like this one here in Parliament or in the national parliaments there does not seem to be much happening in order to resolve the situation.

I am convinced that European states should take their responses to similar cases more seriously, and the European Union should take itself more seriously.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Chinese occupation of Tibet has already lasted for 60 years. Following a long period of relative peace, the Tibetans tried to attract the attention of the international community to the violations of human rights committed by China, by starting their protests just before the Olympic Games were held in Beijing. Many Tibetans were killed in the clashes and public opinion became more radicalised. Despite severe punishments, imprisonment and torture, the Tibetans have not abandoned the road leading to their coveted independence. Last year the feelings of helplessness against Chinese power tragically escalated to acts of self-immolation committed by Buddhist monks and nuns alike. Monastic vows preclude attempts on your own life, which only goes to emphasise the plight of this people. There are at least several reasons for these acts: the social and economic marginalisation of Tibet by China, the lack of political and religious freedoms that should be protected under of the principle of autonomy, the call for the return of the Dalai Lama and increasing levels of indoctrination by China. The monks and nuns are thus trying to attract the attention of the West and to make politicians take action and condemn the offences committed by the Chinese authorities. However, the world is in no hurry to engage in a confrontation with a power whose might is growing with each passing day. If we do not give a clear response to the recent events, many Tibetans are ready to make further sacrifices, while the Chinese repressions will only increase in severity.

(1) See Minutes.

12.2. Bahrain

  President. − The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Bahrain⁽¹⁾.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, I would like to repeat a complaint and protest already made on other occasions. Once again, this afternoon, the resolutions are not available in all languages. Specifically, they are not available in Portuguese. I believe this is another demonstration of how much remains to be done in this House to fully respect the principle of multilingualism. This is all the more serious when we consider that a proposal was adopted just yesterday providing for a reduction of more than EUR 20 million in spending on interpretation and translation in the 2012 budget.

I think that this is unacceptable. Much remains to be done in order to ensure that the principle of multilingualism is really respected, and I believe that the amendment adopted yesterday will jeopardise it still more, as I said yesterday, as well as threatening the jobs of workers essential to the functioning of this Parliament.

  President. − Mr Ferreira, let me assure you that we fully respect the principles of multilingualism and I will check with the services to see what happened to the Portuguese translation.

  Rui Tavares, author. – (PT) Mr President, in the first half of this year, which was marked by the events of the Arab Spring, sales of arms to Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain totalled EUR 35 million. Do not answer by telling me that there is now an embargo in place and that these weapons did not kill demonstrators. Shortly before the United Nations announced an embargo on the transfer of arms to Libya in February, the UK was happily selling EUR 72 350 worth of arms to Gaddafi.

The initial offer by the EU to refugees from Libya was EUR 4 million. The sum that the EU Member States made from the profits of the sale of arms to Gaddafi in 2009 totalled EUR 300 million.

The Arab peoples have shown immense courage in fighting their dictators and tyrants. It seems to me that Europe has not shown the same courage in fighting against their own past complicity and collusion with some of those tyrants, and they think that now they will be able to wipe the slate clean, merely by offering their financial support to the Arab Spring.

The EU is currently involved in some aspects of the repression of the opposition in Bahrain. I am not talking about the Member States but our companies. There are European companies which, under pressure from the Bahraini authorities, have fired their employees for engaging in opposition activities.

There are European companies which have participated in distorting satellite transmissions. I am talking about Eutelnet.com in particular, because of the content relating to the opposition that they passed to Bahrain. The EU has responsibilities, as do European companies, if, for example, they benefit from European funds. It must be said that the complicity of European companies with the repression in Bahrain must cease.

  Charles Tannock, author. − Mr President, we must congratulate the Bahraini people on their Arab Spring struggle for democratic change. We deeply regret the loss of life to date and the fact that criminal sentences handed down to anti-government protesters have been too severe.

The Bahraini courts have decided to drop several of the lower charges against them, but the more serious accusations still remain. Certain civilians are inappropriately being put on trial in special military courts. So Bahrain does not appear consistently to be upholding civil liberties – specifically the right to appeal and equal access to justice – in a way that meets international standards.

We now look forward to the findings of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry set up by His Majesty King Hamad and hope that it will be a means to prevent any more potential abuses from occurring in the future. The EU must urge the Government of Bahrain not only to show restraint when attempting to control protests but also to engage in an open and constructive dialogue with all of its people – in particular the disenfranchised majority Shia population – and to involve all democratic political parties, including the opposition parties, and recognise the right of the Bahraini people to exercise freedom of expression, association and assembly.

  Paul Murphy, author. − Mr President, first of all I want to salute the determination and courage of the protestors in Bahrain, who have stood up against absolutely brutal repression in fighting for democratic rights and change in Bahrain.

The hollowness of the supposed commitment of US imperialism to democracy is demonstrated by their continued support for the regime in Bahrain. At the start of this month they sold another 53 million dollars’ worth of weapons to the regime; these weapons will be used, like the weapons before them and like the weapons provided by Britain, to mow down peaceful protestors. The military trial and torture of medical personnel was an indication of the brutality in which the regime engaged. Because of pressure brought upon them, those sentences given by the military courts have now been revoked – they will be given civil trials.

However, we have to say that there is no reason why these medics should be up before any court at all. They are guilty of nothing but treating the injured and should be released immediately. I have no confidence whatsoever in the so-called Independent Commission of Inquiry. This Commission cannot be trusted; what is needed is a genuine people’s tribunal which could actually investigate and expose the gross abuses of human rights by the regime.

There can be no reconciliation or meaningful dialogue with this regime. In my opinion it needs to be overthrown by the Bahraini workers, the Bahraini youth and the Bahraini poor.

  Marietje Schaake, author. − Mr President, before a doctor begins to practise, he or she swears to help those in need of medical help, indiscriminately. That is a universally-applied principle.

Bahraini doctors, many of whom were educated here in the EU, did just that. Amidst a violent government-led crackdown on peaceful protesters these doctors risked their lives to assist fellow citizens in need. They have now been convicted by military courts and received draconian sentences of up to 15 years for fulfilling their obligations. The allegations seem fabricated and politically-motivated.

We observe worrying trends. One is that of targeted attacks against doctors and paramedics but, more broadly, military trials for civilians. The abuse of emergency laws is of great concern. That must end. We condemn these highly cynical abuses of power and demand the unconditional release of the Bahraini doctors and all other political prisoners, including bloggers.

It is not only the Bahraini Government that needs to be addressed here; EU companies have played an unpleasant role in the crackdown. Some have been laying off workers at the demand of the government and others have provided surveillance technology. These practices, as well as any and all weapon exports, must stop and human rights must be respected.

  Mario Mauro , author. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution is particularly weighty and detailed, and this is because it is intended to condemn the attitude of the government of Bahrain, which is responsible for the veritable police state that has been created in response to the legitimate and peaceful protests of its people.

The other factor of extreme concern is the recourse to special military tribunals to try civilians. This, as our resolution states, constitutes a violation of international standards on the right to a fair trial, and we must do everything we can to put an end to mass trials of civilians by military tribunals, or the Court of National Security, to be precise.

We call upon the Bahraini authorities to restore and respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including pluralism, freedom of expression and of assembly, freedom of religion, women’s rights and measures against discrimination, and to put an end to censorship. This is also important in the light of the precedents of the last few months, because what has happened in the last few months shows us that what is at stake, first and foremost, is the lives of thousands of people, the hope of an entire nation and the future of a country.

  Sari Essayah, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, the Arab Spring has also affected Bahrain. Last year there were already some signs of unrest in Shia areas. The demonstrations intensified in February 2011, and increased unrest lasted until the beginning of June, when a general state of emergency was declared.

Nevertheless, there continue to be human rights violations on the part of the royal family against the demonstrators. Hundreds of people have been detained and many trials held. For example, in the summer, 10 opposition leaders were given life sentences. The sentences handed out to representatives of the opposition and activists have been exceptionally harsh. Furthermore, doctors and hospital staff have been persecuted. This happened, for example, at the start of September, when they were imprisoned and then, later on, freed as a result of western pressure.

We still need to insist that the decisions of the military courts should be reversed and also that civilian trials should be transparent and conform to international standards.

  President. − Colleagues, I have information for Mr Ferreira regarding the joint motions for resolutions. The translations of the joint motions, including Portuguese, were already available last night. We do not translate the individual motions any more and that has been the practice for years in this House.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (LT) Mr President, I support my colleagues who spoke of how the hunger for profit and amoral arms dealing allowed, with the West’s help, anti-democratic regimes to take root in the Arab world. Now they are gradually crumbling. For eight months protesters in Bahrain have been demanding change. Clashes during demonstrations have led to 40 deaths and those arrested are being subjected to physical violence. The Bahrain Government must look around and draw conclusions from the lessons of the Arab Spring. It must release protesters tortured in prisons, give them adequate medical care and rehabilitate them. We call for charges against medics who treated protesters injured during demonstrations to be dropped.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the Bahraini popular movement started its peaceful demonstrations last February. People’s calls for human rights and democratic reform were, however, violently put down by the Bahraini security forces. In the course of these events it became clear that the Bahraini security officers were preventing the medical professionals, doctors and nurses from saving the lives of injured demonstrators.

The ALDE Group calls on the Bahraini authorities to stop all the violations and investigate all human rights violations and to allow the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit the country. We welcome King Hamad’s decision to set up an Independent Commission to investigation the crackdown and violations.

Finally, all peaceful demonstrators and activists should be released.

  Ryszard Czarnecki, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, the Latin proverb pecunia non olet says that ‘money does not smell’. Today, in the course of our debates on Burma and Bahrain, I would like to make it very clear that we are not only discussing Bahrain, but Europe as well. We are discussing European companies that are amassing fortunes at the expense of human rights. Bahrain is a mirror in which today’s Europe is reflected. This must be stated very clearly.

Being a blogger myself, I would like to express my solidarity with our blogger colleagues in Bahrain, who operate under totally different conditions compared to Europe. I believe that it is very important that the European Parliament should take a stand on the issue of human rights in Bahrain, for this is part of building civil society there.

  Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, recall the spring of 1848 when Europe’s democratic movements were roused from the ruins. They had a successful spring, but were plagued by internal divisions and therefore the oppressors and the kings were able to return by the end of the year. We must not allow the Arab Spring to meet the same fate. Instead we must defend the people in these countries. People are being imprisoned and subjected to torture, military trials are being conducted and doctors are being prevented from performing treatment, and here we are also talking about doctors who have sworn a two-thousand-year-old oath to treat everybody.

Thousands of Saudi soldiers are invading Bahrain and helping to maintain the oppression. This is another brutal, oppressive regime. We must stop all military exports and we must place requirements on those European undertakings that are exploiting the situation in countries subject to oppression in order to make money. We must also abandon our oil dependency, because that is what gives these dictators control over the oil revenue and maintains their control over these countries. We must finally put a stop to European undertakings exploiting this situation for their own profit.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, first of all, I welcome the fact that we are adopting – and not before time, I might add – a specific resolution on Bahrain.

The wave of protests of the Arab Spring has been brewing in Bahrain since February. Since then, there has been rampant repression there, as in Syria and Yemen. Dozens of peaceful demonstrators have been murdered, arrested and tortured. The repression has also struck doctors and medical staff, whose only crime has been to dare assist the victims of this savage repression. Human rights defenders, lawyers and trade unionists are constantly being harassed. We are witnessing show trials, with death sentences being pronounced in just seven minutes. The least one can say is that the international community has been slow to react and that condemnations of the repression have been weak at best. It has to be said that its important neighbour, Saudi Arabia, is paying close attention. Worse, it has intervened militarily to assist the current regime. Thousands of Saudi soldiers are still on Bahraini soil.

It is difficult not to notice how timid the resolution we are debating today is on this subject, with not the slightest condemnation of this military presence. There have been expressions of ‘deep concern’. That is weak.

Both the Commission and the Council have remained silent. Does Baroness Ashton think she can construct her human rights strategy by applying double standards, while telling us that she wants to ‘start from the facts’? It is time to react and to act on behalf of the Bahraini people.

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) Mr President, the Arab Spring which started in North Africa has spread to most Arab countries, bringing with it a wave of demonstrations, unrest and rebellion against the ruling regimes. This wave of unrest did not spare Bahrain, but the King of Bahrain has decided to stop the protests from spreading. He appealed to security forces from the Gulf Cooperation Council to help him restore order in the country. As a decision taken by the recognised authorities of a country, I believe that the deployment of GCC security forces can be respected. However, the way the Bahraini administration has treated doctors and paramedics going about their ethical duties and treating demonstrators injured by the security forces is worrying. The continuing repression used against demonstrators and political activists has also created misgivings as regards the civilised resolution of political disagreements. The majority of governments in the Arab world have decided to use force against their political opponents. The wiser and more cautious ones, however, have entered into some degree of dialogue with representatives of their discontented subjects and offered solutions and outcomes to resolve the problems by peaceful means by coming to some sort of agreement. I believe that we should advise the King of Bahrain to take the same route.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, since the outbreak of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, there have also been regular peaceful demonstrations in Bahrain. The regime has responded extremely brutally, however, and dozens of demonstrators have been injured or killed as a result.

It is also very sad to learn that doctors who treated injured demonstrators, as they are bound to do by their code of honour, have been sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for anti-government activity. Treating the wounded is a duty under international humanitarian law and Bahrain is also a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

It is not just the Bahraini security forces that are guilty here, however, as Saudi troops, equipped with Western weapons, were also involved in the massacres.

We must therefore demand that Bahrain should consistently observe human rights and that a truly democratic process should take place. We must take care to ensure that Sharia law is not cemented in place via the back door.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, the Arab Spring pro-democracy demonstrations also spread to Bahrain, where the arrest of 47 doctors and hospital nurses has recently come to light. They are accused of incitement and using force to try to overthrow the Government, although, in reality, their actual offences are adherence to medical ethics and caring for the injured demonstrators.

It has to be realised that, in Bahrain, the Sunni Muslims, who make up 30% of the population, have ruled the country since the 18th century. It is therefore little wonder, then, that the Shia Muslims, who constitute a majority, are protesting against the monarchy on behalf of their rights, which have been trampled upon. Opposition to reform is reflected both in the harsh sentences handed out to human rights activists without any proper justification as well as the heavy censorship on the Internet. The protests have been forcefully repressed, as usual.

Bahrain should respect international human rights and permit open dialogue, which could be of help in much needed social change. Only later will we be able to analyse the real impact of the Arab Spring.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, a report released on Monday by several human rights organisations draws attention to the fact that the wave of protests and changes of regime in the Arab world has led to many countries tightening repressive measures.

Bahrain is one of the most disturbing examples in this respect, given the brutality with which the movement for political and social reform has been supressed. The intervention of the army, including troops from the Gulf Cooperation Council forces, against peaceful protests has resulted in dozens of deaths, hundreds of people injured and many arrests. The decrease in the intensity of protests has not led to a reduction of reprisals. There continue to be reports of arrests of human rights defenders and of unfair dismissals and convictions of health professionals who offered first aid to injured protestors, as well as of detainees being deprived of legal and medical assistance and censorship being imposed on the press and on Internet access. The EU has frequently condemned the violence and acts of repression ordered by the Government of Bahrain, but the situation has remained unchanged.

I believe that we need to continue to press for the release of political prisoners and an end to the prosecution of doctors and persecution on political and religious grounds. I also believe that the Bahraini authorities should urgently commute the death sentences that have been imposed and renounce this barbaric practice. Finally, I wish to express my appreciation concerning the delay in US arms sales to Bahrain until the report of the commission of inquiry is released next week.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ has affected many countries: Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. We are shocked that in the latter country the regime has also come down hard on those who support human rights, against those demonstrating in the streets for more freedom, for more of the kind of personal advantages we enjoy in the west, and particularly in the European Union. I am shocked that my fellow doctors, nurses and paramedics are being brought to trial and sentenced for as many as 15 years for tending to those who were injured in the streets, those who were fighting for their lives, and whose lives would have been lost without medical care. I am shocked that Bahrain uses the death penalty to eliminate political opponents and I am pleased that today we are passing a resolution in favour of democratisation and progress in Bahrain.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, the situation in Bahrain appears to be very grim. The authorities continue to use force, to an unreasonable degree, against peaceful demonstrators calling for democratic change and reforms. The prison sentences of 15 years, received by doctors and health-care personnel for practising their profession, sound especially harsh. These medical professionals were caring for all those injured in the demonstrations, whatever side they were on, and were thus adhering to the ethical rules of their profession. Sentences such as these must be overturned, and these medical professionals must be allowed once again to carry out their responsibilities.

Nor does sentencing civilians in military courts meet the criteria of a fair trial. All the details concerning the arrests of women and children on trumped-up grounds send a worrying signal regarding Bahrain’s ability to act in accordance with its international obligations. Listening to the will of the people is vitally important, and national dialogue must always be genuine.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). – Mr President, I am deeply concerned by the situation in Bahrain. Reports of injuries among citizens exercising their right to peaceful protest and among medical professionals attending to the wounded are to be condemned in the strongest terms. Nevertheless, we must be wary of Iranian attempts to gain influence over the protest movement and within Bahrain in general. Iranian control over Bahrain would put Tehran within reach of the Arabian Peninsula and the very large reserves of oil to be found there. In a period when we are still recovering from severe recession, there is significant global interest in making sure the world’s largest proven oil reserves do not fall into Iranian or pro-Iranian hands.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the situation in Bahrain is one of ferocious repression of a people fighting for democracy and freedom, to whom we here wish to express our complete solidarity. Various examples of this repression have been mentioned in this debate. Foreign troops from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which invaded the country, have taken part in this repression. Let us not forget that this is a country which is home to the biggest United States base in the Persian Gulf and the Fifth Fleet of the US Navy, which is considered a strategic platform for the whole region.

It is time to put an end to this self-serving understanding of human rights, which binds and subjugates them to the geopolitical and geostrategic interests of imperialist powers. It is time to bring an end to this profound hypocrisy, which is clouding the issue of human rights in order to intervene in and carry out acts of aggression against countries and sovereign peoples, so as to plunder their resources, staying silent or speaking out only very quietly against the repression perpetrated by ‘friendly’ regimes, in a shocking show of complacency and even complicity towards these regimes.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Bahrain the ruling family has rejected reform for far too long, and like Saudi Arabia, which props it up, believes in the efficacy of repression. The Arab world is in the throes of irrepressible change, however, and not even Saudi Arabia is immune from the wind of change and from the thirst for democratisation and the aspiration for political, economic and social reforms.

Last week, a tribunal in Bahrain sentenced 14 people, including 12 women, to six months in prison for having taken part in an illegal demonstration. The defendants were pronounced guilty of provoking chaos and panic in the population of Manama during a protest inside a shopping centre and were imprisoned for having taken part in a gathering of more than five persons.

Since the middle of February, when the protests in Bahrain against the Sunni monarchy began, hundreds of people have been arrested. The main opposition parties have put forward a peaceful solution to the political crisis taking place since mid-February. The document calls for democratic reforms and a democratically elected government, but these requests have been rejected. The European Union cannot remain silent in the face of these clear violations of the right to demonstrate and of the freedom of expression.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, at the outset I should like to acknowledge the important role this Parliament has played in making sure that the situation in Bahrain remains high on the EU’s public agenda.

As Lady Ashton said in this Chamber two weeks ago, we welcome some recent positive steps, namely the decision to annul the charges and sentences against the medical staff and order a retrial in civilian courts.

However, it is vital that justice is administered fairly and transparently. We remain convinced that a proper investigation in which the right of defence is exercised correctly should lead to these charges being dropped.

We also recall that the medics are just one of the many groups of civilians who have been subject to harassment, unjustified arrest and harsh sentences, including the death sentence. Retrials should be extended to all civilians tried in the National Safety Court.

We are looking forward to the results of the Independent Commission of Inquiry, the announcement of which was publicly welcomed by the EU. We hope that, after it reports in November, action will be taken to follow up on its findings. We are also looking forward to the promised visit by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Commission of Inquiry should offer a platform for reconciliation. The rifts in Bahraini society can only be addressed through a deep and inclusive national dialogue where all parties can be heard. Clearly, all human rights violations must stop.

Our fear is that the more time passes without positive action, the more difficult it will be to establish meaningful national dialogue. The EU has repeated this essential message – one of encouragement, not mere condemnation – in many public statements and direct contacts between the High Representative/Vice-President and the most senior Bahraini representatives.

Our exchanges with the authorities and with all the parties involved will continue. We all share an interest in Bahrain’s reforms, unity and prosperity. We will also continue to listen to the concerns of peaceful Bahraini civil society and to strongly encourage and support them to continue with the national dialogue and agree on reforms which will benefit all Bahraini citizens.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The events that took place this spring in Bahrain should not become a forgotten revolution. The intervention of Saudi troops may have enabled royal authority to be temporarily restored but, despite our repeated calls, a genuine dialogue with opponents to political reforms has not yet been launched. Recent developments in this country are not at all encouraging. Dozens of demonstrators arrested in February have been brought before special national security courts and have received record sentences (between seven years’ imprisonment and life). Doctors and medical staff from the Manama hospital have also received heavy sentences for the simple fact of having acted ethically by treating Shiite victims of the demonstrations on Pearl Square. Press freedom is also under threat following the prosecution and fining of a number of journalists for spreading false information during the riots.

We cannot operate double standards with regard to the events in North Africa and the Middle East. I therefore believe that the time has come to be very firm with the Bahrain authorities, who should urgently launch a genuine process of democratic reforms which takes account of the aspirations of demonstrators.

(1) See Minutes.

12.3. The case of Rafah Nached in Syria

  President. − The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the case of Rafah Nached in Syria⁽¹⁾.

  Adam Bielan, author. − (PL) Mr President, as more and more dictatorships in Arab countries collapse, Bashar al-Assad’s regime still subscribes to a policy of terror and repressions against its own society, a policy of compromising human rights. The case of Rafah Nached, who is internationally renowned as the person who brought psychoanalysis to Syria, is a clear illustration of the regime’s loss of legitimacy and the total lack of consideration on the part of authorities for the need to coexist with its own society. The freedom movement in Syria is gaining momentum and the incumbent leader is already showing signs of being perfectly aware that the end of his dictatorship is imminent.

The arbitrary imprisonment of Rafah Nached gives every indication of being a violation of all civilised norms in the field of human rights. The charge of efforts intended to destabilise the country brought against a person who organises support workshops for the victims of crimes committed by government forces is exceptionally absurd and even comes close to being paranoia. I call upon the Syrian authorities to release Rafah Nached from prison immediately and to discontinue their policy of persecuting those who provide humanitarian aid.

I also urge them to free political prisoners and journalists. Rafah Nached is a person actively involved in facilitating dialogue between the people of Syria. I hope that these activities will continue on the basis of her achievements.

  Jiří Maštálka, author. – (CS) Mr President, I fully support the release of Rafah Nached from prison. I assume that she is innocent, although I do not know why – having seen so much – I should still trust the media campaigns.

However, I fundamentally reject the exploitation of the European Parliament in support of further unnecessary and cruel wars. If we agree that an armed conflict with more than a thousand dead per year constitutes a war, then a civil war is already raging in Syria. The state is fighting insurgents who are supported from abroad. Meanwhile, Brussels is again backing one of the warring parties. We are again meekly setting out along a path without having any idea who the insurgents are. Our honest support for Ms Rafah Nached may also amount to blind involvement in a campaign promoting hatred.

I believe that the role of the EU is to mediate peace. Let us at least vote today not only for the release of Rafah Nached, but also for peace.

  Rui Tavares, author. – (PT) Mr President, first of all, I would like to welcome our visitors to this House, namely the Syrian civil society activists and friends of the cause of Rafah Nached, who are here to attend this debate. One of the most important things when we have these debates on human rights is knowing that they do indeed have an effect, whether the House is full or empty. We often despair because we are talking about causes that are outside the territory of the European Union, but we often meet people who have been released after such debates and/or felt less alone in the knowledge that their cause was championed in a forum outside their own countries. Many of us, coming from countries that were also once dictatorships, know that the most important thing is not to abandon those who are resisting; not to abandon the people of the opposition.

This case concerns a Syrian psychoanalyst who works with torture victims, who was leaving Syria in order to return to France, where she lives, and where her daughter was due to give birth, when she was arrested by the Syrian authorities on spurious charges. However, she writes from prison, saying:

(FR) ‘I am now discovering a hidden part of the society in which I live and for which I am responsible.’

(PT) I think that these are admirable words from Ms Nached, as is the way in which, even when in prison, she feels responsible for her society. In this same society, of Syria, there have been 4 000 deaths during the Arab Spring, 7 000 missing, 22 000 arrested, 6 000 Syrian refugees in Lebanon, 10 000 Syrian refugees in Turkey and 7 000 Syrian refugees in Jordan.

I believe it is crucial for the EU to establish a commission of inquiry to find out what is happening to human rights activists in Syria. There has been much talk here of double standards. I believe we should exercise the same honesty when speaking about cases in Syria as in Bahrain and Libya. That is what we are trying to do here in Parliament. We should follow this course of action and demand the same of Baroness Ashton and the Commission, represented here by Ms Kroes.

  Véronique De Keyser, author. − (FR) Mr President, this morning we had a very political resolution on Syria or, rather, on Syria and Egypt. This afternoon, we wanted a separate resolution on Rafah Nached because, in truth, this is anything but a political issue. It is a human rights issue. Rafah Nached is, as has been mentioned, an eminent psychoanalyst, who studied in Paris, who is in a very poor state of health – she is 66 years old, she is recovering from cancer, she has heart problems – who is in prison with 15 other detainees and who, what is more, has done nothing. She is an example of those, in some cases prominent, citizens – journalists, actors, tribal chiefs – whom the Syrian Government is arbitrarily attacking to show that no one is immune from this arbitrariness.

Today, for humanitarian reasons, we are calling not only on the Syrian Government, over which, it must be said, we have very little influence, but also on all who are in contact with it, our Chinese friends, whom we were talking about earlier, the Arab League, which met with President Bashar al-Assad, all those with whom the European Union has relations, to ensure that these, completely innocent, people are freed and also that all those who are actively helping them – humanitarian organisations, etc. – can at least do humanitarian work.

I ask as a matter of urgency that Rafah Nached be freed. As you know, voices are being raised everywhere calling for her release. Baroness Ashton has made a statement in this regard. Even Carla Sarkozy has written about this. Well, today we are also telling the Syrian Government that enough is enough.

  Marietje Schaake, author. − Mr President, Rafah Nached gives a face to the people behind the numbers, reflecting the cost of the unspeakable violence and injustice in Syria.

We are all eyewitnesses to what is happening. On the Internet we can see the disproportionate, government-led violence against unarmed citizens. We can see the brave demonstrators defying fear and risking their lives to get stories out. Holding a cell phone can be a reason to be shot by a sniper. Women are being raped and children tortured and mutilated. Parents who receive the bodies of their murdered children hide them and bury them in secret because the government also attacks funerals. I am speechless and furious at the same time.

Bashar al-Assad’s government and his collaborators have no legitimacy whatsoever. The international community lacks a UN mandate because China and Russia object to a UN Security Council resolution, but the EU can, and must, do more. Firstly, we must call for an international criminal court investigation into the crimes committed and, secondly, we must demand targeted sanctions for those who violate human rights.

We are Syria’s most important trading partner and therefore we need to apply targeted sanctions to the economic elites and give them a clear choice: doing business with Europe means doing no business with Bashar al-Assad. We must also make sure that EU-made ICT products that censor and spy on Syrians do not end up in the hands of the repressors, because that is continuing to happen. We must continue, with Turkey, to end the unspeakable violence in Syria.

  Cristian Dan Preda, author. − (RO) Mr President, I also call for the immediate release of Ms Rafah Nached, the first female psychoanalyst in Syria. She was arbitrarily arrested on 10 September and has since been held in detention despite the precarious state of her health. No clear charge has been made against her but, according to information in the press, she is accused of activities likely to destabilise the Syrian State and, according to her family, risks spending seven years in prison if at some point she is found guilty.

This is a surreal situation. The Syrian regime is holding eight psychoanalysts in custody for the simple reason that they organised meetings designed to help Syrians overcome fear. This is a clear sign that repression in Syria knows no limits, and consequently I am pleased that our emergency resolution was preceded by a text dealing with the political situation in this country, strongly condemning the repression that has killed over three thousand victims and calling on Assad to withdraw from power so that a transition will be possible.

  Elena Băsescu, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (RO) Mr President, dictatorial regimes often take action against psychology and psychologists. Hitler abolished social sciences departments. In 1977, the communist regime in Romania closed down the psychology departments of the country’s large universities. Specialists in the field were indicted or forced into unskilled work.

Through the abusive arrest of the psychologist Ms Rafah Nached, the Syrian regime continues this sad tradition, again proving its undemocratic credentials. She is not a political activist, but her actions were considered subversive because they are concerned with the human soul, which naturally aspires to freedom. And for the Syrian regime, this aspiration represents a danger.

Ms Rafah Nached should be released immediately. Not because she is well known in the scientific community or because of her health problems, but because she has done nothing more than to exercise her profession.

  Joanna Senyszyn, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PL) Mr President, on 10 September Rafah Nached, who for 26 years had been running a psychoanalytical clinic in Damascus, was unlawfully arrested in Damascus. Up until recently she had been actively involved in providing help to those traumatised by activities of the regime ruling Syria. Nine thousand people have signed a petition demanding her release. The imprisonment of Rafah Nached amounts to a violation of fundamental human rights. It is the moral duty of our Parliament to seek her immediate release. We also demand that the Syrian authorities guarantee that doctors, volunteers and human rights activists will be able to conduct their work without fear, repression or sanctions being imposed on them by the authorities.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, promoting the activities of human right activists and ensuring their protection and security must be seen as a priority in relations between the European Union and third countries and taken into account when formulating the Union’s foreign policy. We should simultaneously develop and apply harsh sanctions against third countries that commit serious violations of human rights.

  Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the arrest of Rafah Nached in Damascus is an example of the haphazard repressive measures that the Syrian regime is taking against its own people. She is one of many who have been detained by the authorities for alleged activities that are said to be likely to destabilise the state. Arbitrary arrests and vague accusations indicate that President al-Assad’s regime has become mistrustful of virtually every Syrian citizen and can no longer tell the difference between compassion and confrontation.

The deepening paranoia of Syrian authorities may be considered – perhaps – a positive sign; all governments should be afraid of their people. However, people should not be afraid of their government and for that matter the Syrian regime has crossed all the lines. President al-Assad must end the violence and turn the power over to the people so that a democratic transition can commence.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, the case of Rafah Nached has profoundly shocked everybody in this House. I am pleased that irrespective of which parliamentary party takes the floor, Members are essentially speaking with one voice. We all demand that this courageous woman be released. At the same time, the problem under discussion here today does not concern only this event, outrageous though it may be. The problem is that of democracy in Syria.

I believe that what we have been witnessing in the course of the Arab Spring makes it imperative that we, in this House, recognise that events of unprecedented importance for the history of the world are happening as we watch. We are thus learning that the opinions of some people that only some civilisations, some religions and some cultures are destined to experience democracy and freedom, whereas others are not mature enough to embrace democracy, are wrong. Our Arab brothers today are paying in blood because of their struggle for freedom. This is strong confirmation of the fact that freedom is for all and that democracy is for everybody.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, the situation of Rafah Nached is a symbol, especially for her European friends, of the repression that is gripping Syria. She was arrested at the airport when arriving from Paris to be present at her daughter’s confinement. Aged 66, she is seriously ill, and her state of health is getting worse. We must therefore do everything we can to obtain the release of this woman, who has always worked hard to encourage dialogue between all Syrians.

Ms Nached is a true symbol. She is a symbol of the terrible repression in Syria against all those peaceful demonstrators, who are entirely innocent. Thousands of people have been imprisoned, hundreds have been killed, mainly because they had the courage to photograph the repression. They paid with their lives for those photographs that tell us what is happening. Yet the voice of the European Union is not strong enough. The sanctions announced are inadequate and poorly implemented.

Only through pressure being exerted on the Syrian bourgeoisie can President al-Assad be toppled. What is the European Union waiting for before it will implement effective sanctions?

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) Mr President, the situation in Syria remains highly complex. The Assad regime is only holding on to power through military force, and repeated reports of demonstrations being suppressed by army units bear witness to how nervous the regime is. We should not try to seek any logic in what the Syrian security forces are doing. The baffling arrest of 66-year-old Ms Nached, who is recovering from cancer and has a heart condition, clearly shows that the suspicious and paranoid security forces fear for their very existence. Under these circumstances I believe it would be difficult for us to call for humane behaviour or freedom of expression and international standards, particularly as the Syrian leadership regards the European Union as an enemy rather than a friend. Diplomacy by Moscow or Beijing has a better chance of success, which is why I believe that in this particular case greater creativity on the part of the European External Action Service could bring the desired outcomes, particularly through closer collaboration with some of our more non-traditional partners.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, the protests that have been taking place in Syria since last March will not cease until the authorities learn the lessons of the Arab Spring. We have been discussing the case of Rafah Nached, the first woman in Syria to practise psychoanalysis. Her academic and clinical research has focused on self-help techniques aimed at overcoming the fear of violence. The free courses organised by her with her father’s help, with the intention of helping Syrians to conquer their fears, were used as a pretext for her arrest at Damascus airport on 10 September this year. In spite of the huge number of appeals made for her release by both the international community and public figures as well as the World Association of Psychoanalysis, Rafah Nached remains in custody, while information on her situation is being withheld.

Taking into account the escalation of violence in Syria and the routine violations of human rights by the Syrian authorities, I believe it is time for international action. The Syrian Government must finally realise that violating the fundamental human rights of its citizens entails the risk of being called to account by the international community. Political changes in Syria are inevitable and the use of violence is only a way of procrastination. The recent end of Gaddafi’s rule proves that all dictators inevitably fall. However, the price of their departure is always very high.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, recent events in Syria show that this country does not have a chance of achieving a non-violent revolution and that all expressions of disobedience against the regime will be suppressed by the authorities. Citizens fighting for their fundamental human rights and journalists are being illegally arrested without good reason or are being held in prison. One such prisoner, lawlessly detained on the basis of arbitrary arrest and being held without a fair trial, is Rafah Nached, who was arrested last month in Damascus. The question of her detention must be resolved immediately, especially in view of her continually deteriorating health.

Today we must raise our voice in appeal to the Syrian authorities to discontinue their practice of arbitrary arrests and detentions of political figures, human rights activists and journalists, and to release all prisoners of conscience. The authorities must also provide a public account of all cases of people killed, wounded or missing in their country.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, the Syrian Government has responded to the Arab Spring uprising both cruelly and violently. One example is the 66-year-old Syrian psychoanalyst, Rafah Nached, who was arrested on 10 September and charged with attempting to treat traumatised patients using therapy.

The case of Nached shows that a real dictatorship, which is what Syria undoubtedly is, wants to control both the conscious and subconscious experiences of its subjects. That is how Nached, in practising her profession, became an enemy of the state. A doctor who helped countless patients during her career, and even founded a school of psychoanalysis in her city, is now in a women’s prison in a Damascus suburb, charged with activities undermining the stability of the nation.

Today we, the European Parliament, have issued a resolution and have highlighted the situation in Syria in general. It is good that we can still, in this way, separately bring an individual human case to the attention of the world.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, sadly the debates and words of condemnation in this and other important chambers have done nothing to stop the machine of terror which has been crushing people for six months and has claimed almost 3 000 lives. However, I hope that the European Parliament’s attention to an individual case and such a famous women will have an impact. The arrest of the doctor, psychoanalyst and scientist Rafah Nached on a manufactured pretext has provoked a huge outcry and protests, particularly because she is sick and is imprisoned in horrible conditions. Her release would be a total victory and would bring change in Syria even closer.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, if Ms Rafah Nached is sentenced, then this really will be a sign of the despotism and brutality of the Syrian state, as well as its helplessness and paranoia, as a previous speaker has already said. After all, what does a state have to fear from a woman who is old and infirm and who is only doing her job by helping traumatised people? What is so dangerous about this? She has been accused of having a destabilising effect on the state. In this case, however, the government, the dictatorship, is completely at a loss and, in a completely misguided move, is attempting to make an example of her. As my colleague Mr Preda has already pointed out, we now find ourselves in the realms of the surreal.

We all welcomed the Arab Spring and the democratisation of the region. Of course we Europeans are pleased to see such developments and are trying to support this movement, including though a variety of contacts. However, we must also protest when individuals are imprisoned without grounds. This is truly a violation of human rights, and we must not accept it.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, we are talking today, in essence, about one event, although I am glad that in this Chamber it provides a certain starting point for discussions about current events in Syria. The reason is that the case of Rafah Nached is a good example – a tragic, but good example – of what is happening in Syria and what should not be happening. It is good that an unequivocal signal is being sent from here to Damascus, for I have not heard a single speaker who would disagree, who would offer a different view in respect of the practices adopted in Syria as being totally unacceptable to the European Union. I am very pleased that as regards the matter in hand we have risen above our political differences. Parliament must state clearly that what is happening in Syria is unacceptable to us.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, according to the UN Human Rights Council, the suppression of peaceful demonstrations by the Syrian authorities and their use of force has already claimed at least 3 000 victims. The police and the army are firing upon their own citizens. In a situation where the state violently suppresses human rights instead of defending them, these actions should be roundly condemned and calls made for an immediate end to such conduct. Rafah Nached is one of the most recent persons to be arbitrarily imprisoned and her case arouses particular concern as there is evidence that members of the security services torture and physically abuse detainees and prisoners. I therefore call upon the Syrian authorities to stop the use of force against their own citizens, to respect their fundamental human rights and freedoms and to immediately release all prisoners who have been illegally detained.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, as we have seen, the EU considers the aspirations of the Syrian people for a peaceful transition to democracy to be legitimate and calls on the Syrian authorities to respect the rights of citizens to live in security, and for their legitimate desire for political and social reform to be respected. We believe that the arrest of individuals such as Ms Rafah Nached without well-founded reason makes any transition to democracy difficult and will only further isolate the Syrian authorities from the democratic world. Discussion and diplomacy are needed in order to reach a peaceful solution to the crisis in Syria, and I believe that the EU should play a mediating role, provided that this is wanted by the Syrian authorities and they accept that the rule of law and fundamental freedoms should be respected and that economic and social reforms should be implemented.

I believe that such reforms are one of the best solutions for investing in the future of the country and helping to stabilise its democracy, and that respect for democracy requires the immediate release of Rafah Nached.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, many Members have touched on how our thoughts are with the Syrian people, who continue to suffer under the brutal repressive campaign of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. As far as we are aware, more than 3 000 people have been killed so far. Many thousands more remain in detention following arbitrary arrests and are subject to widespread human rights abuses.

Those detentions are unjust. Let me highlight the particular case of Ms Rafah Nached, the renowned Syrian psychoanalyst, who has now spent over six weeks in jail. She was arrested for no reason, despite her age and despite her health conditions, and there was no reason for arresting her.

The Vice-President/High Representative has reacted strongly and called for the immediate release of Ms Nached, along with all those arbitrarily arrested. It is clear that we need to keep up the pressure to ensure the release of all innocent people, including Ms Nached.

Our strong approach on the Assad regime is right. We have imposed sanctions against that regime and must keep up the pressure to help end the violence. I would also like to emphasise that we have been working through the United Nations with regard to the human rights situation in Syria, with the Special Session of the Human Rights Council in August adopting a strongly-worded resolution on Syria thanks to the EU’s commitment.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Rafah Nached, a psychoanalyst, was arrested on 10 September in the middle of the night at Damascus airport. She wanted to go to France, where she had undertaken part of her studies, for family reasons. She also has many colleagues and friends and maintains strong professional and friendly relationships in France. That is why her arrest arouses deep emotion and has led to a huge outcry in France and in Europe. Dr Nached has practised for many years in Syria, where her professionalism and her human attention are highly regarded. Dr Nached is also very attached to her country, which her reputation honours. In poor health, her detention puts her life in danger. Like thousands of Syrians, Dr Nached is the victim of a violent, indiscriminate regime. No charge has been brought against her by the Syrian authorities. She is aware that the authorities use repression for a cruelly simple reason: because they are afraid of their people. Commissioner, we expect Europe to demand the release of Dr Nached.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR), in writing. – (PL) The case of Rafah Nached is just one of many tragedies daily affecting thousands of Syrians. Repressions and brutal torture are experienced by the old and young, men and women alike. Having taken a new town or city, the army proceeds with cleansing by rounding up people involved in protests. Many of those arrested never come back, and the bodies which are discovered have had their internal organs removed in order to be sold. These methods were developed by Alois Brunner, a high-ranking officer in the SS, the man who, from 1939 onwards, was responsible for the mass deportations and extermination of Polish, Czech, and later French and Balkan Jews. After the war, wanted by international bodies, he escaped punishment for his crimes against humanity. Alois Brunner managed to find asylum in Syria where he was involved in the inception and development of the security forces. A Nazi criminal responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of Europeans was the founding father of the services that are now bringing bloodshed to the streets of Hims, Hama, Damascus and Latakia. We must keep this fact in mind, especially today when the entire European Union must condemn with one voice the events taking place in Syria. When demonstrations were underway in Libya, the decision to impose a no-fly zone was taken quickly. While the Assad regime is torturing the Syrian people, the world remains silent and averts its gaze. Europe must work towards peace in Syria at any price and put pressure on the compromised president who, instead of being in Damascus, should be in the cells of the Hague tribunal.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I condemn the violence which the Syrian Government has used against its own people. UN data show that more than 3 000 people have been killed by the authorities in Damascus in the last seven months. This figure includes 180 children. Amnesty International has recently reported cases in which patients are being tortured in hospitals. Arbitrary arrests, such as that of Ms Rafah Nached on 10 September, are a means of repressing the Syrian people. Critics of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and supporters of human rights are the main victims.

The Syrian authorities should immediately end abuses committed against defenders of human rights and allow humanitarian organisations access to the country so that the victims can be helped. I call on the Council and the Commission to impose sanctions on the regime in Damascus and to intervene for the immediate release of Ms Rafah Nached.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This resolution on urgent topics is indispensable, and we must adopt it with the largest possible majority. The state of health of Dr Nached, who has been arbitrarily detained by the Syrian authorities since 10 September 2011, has seriously deteriorated, and she must be released and treated as quickly as possible. Despite numerous statements from President al-Assad in favour of reform, many journalists, members of the medical profession, human rights defenders and ordinary citizens remain arbitrarily detained in Syria, in violation of human rights and all the rules governing a fair and impartial trial. During the last session, we adopted a resolution calling, inter alia, for the departure of President al-Assad, the cessation of violence and a return to the rule of law. Our position has not changed and we will continue to monitor the situation in Syria with the utmost attention.

(1) See Minutes.

13. Voting time

  President. − The next item is the vote.

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

13.1. Tibet, in particular self-immolation by nuns and monks (B7-0540/2011) (vote)

13.2. Bahrain (B7-0541/2011) (vote)

13.3. The case of Rafah Nached in Syria (B7-0565/2011) (vote)

14. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

15. Council position at first reading: see Minutes

16. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

17. Written declarations included in the register (Rule 123): see Minutes

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

19. Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes

20. Adjournment of the session

(The sitting closed at 16.45)