President. The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the presumed use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, over the last few weeks we have heard and read a lot about the alleged use of European airspace, airports and countries by the United States in its global war on terror, so I welcome this afternoon’s debate. It allows this Parliament to discuss one of the fundamental issues facing European governments and institutions in the 21st century: the balance to be struck between security and liberty in a world characterised in part by mass-casualty terrorism.

I hope the debate will help illuminate the key issues involved, including how to tackle the unprecedented threat we all face from international terrorism, how to ensure respect for the international rule of law at the same time, and how every day Member States have to take hard decisions to maintain the balance between security and liberty and take responsibility for those decisions. I hope too that the debate can demonstrate respect for the word of other governments, the benefits of informed discussion and a sense of proportion. In so doing, Parliament will be able to make a valuable and credible contribution to the larger debate about how to safeguard our security and liberty simultaneously.

As honourable Members of this Parliament will know, allegations have been made in the European and international media and elsewhere concerning US detention facilities in Europe and the use of aircraft to transfer terrorist suspects between countries in order to interrogate them using torture and ill-treatment. These reports prompted discussion amongst European Union Foreign Ministers at the General Affairs Council meeting on 21 November. As a result, the Presidency wrote on 29 November to the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, on behalf of European Union partners, seeking the views of the United States Government on these allegations.

On 5 December the United States Secretary of State made a detailed public statement on the matter in advance of her visit to Europe. The Presidency has forwarded that reply to European Union colleagues and I have today provided a copy of the reply to President Borrell Fontelles.

Some European Union colleagues were able to discuss this matter with Secretary of State Rice last week in Brussels. The United Kingdom has expressed its satisfaction with the US statement. I understand some other European Union colleagues have also made public comments upon the statement by Secretary of State Rice. The Council welcomes the detailed statement by the US Secretary of State, for all European countries share the determination of the United States to protect innocent citizens from the threat of terrorism, while operating within international law.

Let us be clear about the threat our people face from the modern terrorist. Europe has faced terrorism for many years. I do not need to relate the names of the organisations and individuals concerned, but none of us have had to face the kind of threat we face – now and in the long term – from al-Qa’ida and its supporters.

Modern terrorism means mass-casualty attacks. We have seen them in New York, Washington, Istanbul, Madrid, and recently in London and in numerous other cities around the world. Honourable Members will recall that, just a few years ago, Strasbourg was also the target of a thwarted attack. Today we are exposed to fanatical suicide attacks on innocent civilians using modern techniques and technology previously confined to states but now available to individuals on the internet. That is a picture we face for the foreseeable future. Our people need protecting against it; our governments have a clear responsibility to provide that protection. It is a responsibility that requires governments to make difficult decisions, take concrete action and explain and defend those decisions and that action.

The European security strategy adopted in 2003 emphasised that transnational terrorism and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose a threat we cannot ignore. However, at the same time, in seeking responses to these new challenges, it is essential that the rule of law and the human rights of individuals are respected.

The question of torture is a key element of this debate. Torture is abhorrent. The prohibition against it is absolute. The British Government – like all European governments – unreservedly condemns it. We never use it; we never instigate or condone it; we condemn it utterly, and we work hard with others to eradicate it.

Secretary of State Rice’s statement of 5 December makes clear that the policy of the United States Government is to comply with the UN Convention against Torture, that the United States Government complies with its Constitution, its laws and its Treaty obligations. She goes on to say that acts of physical or mental torture are expressly prohibited, that the United States Government does not authorise or condone torture of detainees and that torture and conspiracy to commit torture are crimes under US law wherever they may occur in the world.

The Council welcomes this statement. It is right that the word of another sovereign government – expressed so clearly on such an important issue – is respected within a larger discussion on the balance between security and liberty. As Secretary of State Rice herself said on 5 September, that debate in and among democracies is natural and healthy. That must be right and this Parliament can and has made a contribution to that debate.

I understand that, in the light of the allegations, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe has requested from the Member States of that international organisation an explanation of how they ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am sure that Member States will want to cooperate with the Council of Europe. Informed exchanges on issues like this are important, including for the benefit of our people who look to their governments and institutions for a lead.

I look forward to hearing your views and those of Commissioner Frattini on this important subject.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, the European Commission considers it our moral, institutional and political duty to ensure that the fundamental rights of every person are always respected and upheld without exceptions or derogations of any kind. Torture and inhumane treatment are a negation of the values on which the European Union has been based ever since its inception, and on which it is still based.

Secondly, I should like to reassert the crucial, strategic importance of the joint action and close cooperation between the European Union and the United States in the fight against terrorism. All European democratic nations, the United States and our other international partners must together defend their common values against this century’s greatest threat: international terrorism.

As Minister Alexander has just said, I welcome the formal statement by the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, that the United States does not tolerate torture, whether on US territory or anywhere else in the world, but considers it a crime. As you will realise, that is a binding statement, committing the United States to a certain kind of conduct. It is also proof of the great US democracy that a public debate has been started there in Congress, in the Senate and in the country’s free press. That is also something for us to reflect upon and to watch, since Europe too is taking part in the international debate on this major issue.

Thirdly, it is important to ascertain the truth behind accusations deriving from press sources, because if the accusations were shown to be true they could have grave political consequences, since they would constitute a serious breach of the Treaty. ‘Ascertain’, ladies and gentlemen, means finding evidence: according to the rule of law, no accusation can be considered proven if there is no evidence, and until evidence is found I personally have a duty to respect the word, and thus also the denial, that I have been given by all the governments I have consulted so far – and I repeat so far. That does not rule out our common desire for the truth but, as I said to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs the evening before last, I clearly cannot cast doubt on the credibility of the legitimate and democratic governments of European Union countries and candidate countries without good evidence to the contrary.

In addition, I cannot consider that there are any individual European countries ‘on trial’, and I say that in inverted commas, particularly to our friends in Poland and Romania. We have a duty to ascertain whether abuse and torture have been committed throughout Europe. One country or another cannot be singled out as the object of investigation, as the accused, or as being on trial. If torture or inhumane treatment has been carried out, we have a duty to ascertain that fact throughout the territory of the European Union.

Some European countries, as you know, have started investigations at a national level. That has been done by the government in some cases, as in Portugal and Poland for instance, or by the judicial authorities in Member States such as mine, Italy, as well as in Spain, Germany and other countries. These judicial authorities are conducting investigations using the powers of the courts. We are, of course, awaiting the conclusions of these judicial inquiries with all due respect and without being able to influence them in any way.

Yesterday I met the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. I met him yesterday evening and reaffirmed the Commission’s support – and my personal backing – for the investigation he has begun, under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights, into all 46 Council of Europe member states. I also assured Mr Davis of the Commission’s staunch support for the second inquiry set up in parallel by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. Dick Marty, its rapporteur, deserves public acknowledgement for the work he is carrying out. As you will probably already know, the Secretary General will conclude his investigation on 21 February 2006 and Dr Marty will present an initial report on his inquiry to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly by the end of January 2006.

Through our Commissioners Mr Barrot and Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, I have asked for the Eurocontrol data on flight plans over European territory and all possible relevant data collected by the European Union Satellite Centre to be made available to the Council of Europe for its investigation.

At the moment there is no evidence to confirm the accusations, but we must continue to work in close collaboration with the Council of Europe and with this Parliament to seek out the truth, and that is what I shall do. It is not for me to decide what kind of working instrument Parliament will choose for this joint operation; I shall confine myself to saying that an investigation needs powers to enquire, question, investigate and inspect, and it is of course up to you to decide whether there is provision for such powers or not, as Parliament’s legal service would seem to indicate.

In any case, seeking the truth, in my view, means not just ascertaining if there has been any abuse and then drawing the right conclusions, but also clearing the air of negative preconceptions and suspicions that might otherwise undermine our necessary international action in the fight against terrorism.

In conclusion, then, if there is any suspicion or evidence that abuse and torture have been committed in Europe, we shall certainly be in a weaker position in the face of terrorists and antidemocratic terrorist propaganda. That is why we have to find out the truth; that is why we have to do so as loyal friends and allies of the United States, while jealously safeguarding our shared values at all times.

  Hans-Gert Poettering, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with two prefatory remarks. The first is that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats regards itself as a partner and friend of the United States of America. Far from this debate, or any other on this subject, being a fit and proper occasion for anti-American sentiments, what we have to do is consider the facts in the light of our principles.

Secondly, the fight against terrorism is one of the greatest challenges of present times. To the terrorists, who want to spread fear and fright, to intimidate, we respond by refusing to be intimidated, and by waging war on terrorism with all the forcefulness and determination we can muster.

There can be no compromises with terrorists, any more than there can be compromises when human dignity, human rights and the upholding of the law are at stake. Our system of values, the values in which we share, must not take second place to legal and political opportunism. The principles that underpin our democratic system of values must never be abandoned, for it is they that distinguish us from terrorists. If we were to adopt the terrorists’ methods by trampling the law underfoot, they would be the winners. The fight against terrorism must be fought by legal means and in accordance with the principles of human dignity and human rights.

What that means is that, if a person is suspected of terrorism, the proof that he or she is one can be obtained only by him or her being subject to the due process of law. Kidnapping, abduction, unlawful detention and torture are things we must never permit. No state on earth – neither the European Parliament nor the European Union, neither the Member States of the European Union nor those of the Council of Europe – can permit such things.

Let me quote what was said in a major German newspaper yesterday by the rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Swiss parliamentarian Dick Marty; he said that the information available to him thus far reinforces the impression that members of the public are unlawfully transported to European countries and held there for periods of time. Mr Marty’s very words are that ‘It has to be noted that the charges have never formally been contested by the United States.’ Much as we welcome the US Secretary of State’s statement that the USA would not tolerate torture, that is not proof that people have not been abducted, and that is why we demand information and transparency. We see it as crucial that the truth be put before us.

I might add that this is the line we have always taken. We have always taken a critical view of Guantanamo, and did so even before the US Supreme Court handed down its ruling. I can speak for this House when I say that we can take pride in our defence of human rights, in Guantanamo as elsewhere, and in the fact that the Supreme Court can be said to have come to the same conclusion.

What is now needed is for what really happened to be brought to light and it has to be said that, whatever our criticisms of secret services, we do need them, and that includes the American one, the CIA, for we know that they, and the CIA, are of assistance to us. In a situation like the present one, in which a German woman has been abducted in Iraq, we need the secret services’ back-up, but let me say, most definitely and most firmly, that secret services, too, must be founded upon the law. Human dignity and human rights are worth more to us than anything else; we must speak out wherever they are violated, and where it is unclear whether they have been, we must set investigations in motion. That is why our group advocates close cooperation with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and also, if need be, the setting-up of a Temporary Committee to help defend human rights and human dignity.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with Mr Poettering that we need to inform without prejudging the issues. The essential issue is whether institutions of the European Union or of its Member States were involved – whether actively or passively – in setting up prisons outside the law and in the use in them of methods of interrogation that have to be described as torture.

Both prisons operating outside the law and the use of torture for the purposes of interrogation would constitute breaches of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, of the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Convention and of the Convention against Torture ratified by all Member States of the European Union and by all candidates for accession to it.

I do wholeheartedly agree with Commissioner Frattini, though, that it is not the task of the European Parliament to investigate any one Member State or candidate country; what matters instead is that we get a picture of how things stand in Europe as a whole. The best place in which to do that is this House.

If, though, we set this inquiry in motion, we cannot do so in isolation from the experience of the past. Mr Poettering is right to say that we need secret services, but, more than ever, they need to use modern methods of investigation. The infiltration of organisations whose actions are intended to undermine and destroy our system of values, who do not shy away from the destruction of things of value or of life itself, is indispensable – that much is common knowledge; that it takes more than road traffic police to combat such organisations is also common knowledge. That the secret services’ modus operandi is not transparent is also common knowledge – God knows that it is not. That, after all, is why they are called secret services, and their need occasionally to work in secrecy is also common knowledge. It is also common knowledge, though, that the United States of America and its current administration are not always that fussy about international law!

My view is that the decision to wage war in Iraq was taken without reference to international law. The decision to wage this war was a disaster, and the war itself is one. It follows, of course, that one cannot have a great deal of confidence in the secret services of a country whose government’s actions are not quite open and legal, or which at any rate gives that impression.

It is, of course, possible to do things that foster trust; one of them is to get the actual facts out on view for all to see, to say who flew where, when and for what reasons, to state in what manner he was taken prisoner, on what legal basis, what circumstances led to his being arrested, where he was taken, and how he was questioned. If these answers show that everything was legal and above board, then fine, but if – and we hope that this will not prove to be the case – it appears from them that we have no option but to conclude that institutions of the European Union or of its Member States played a part, whether actively or passively, in the unlawful arrest of persons or the operation of prisons outside the law, and in torture, then sanctions must be the inevitable consequence.

Let us, then, have no pre-emptive judgments; let us, instead, simply list the questions to which we expect clear answers. I can tell Mr Poettering that it is not a matter of ‘if need be’, but this very day, in the Conference of Presidents, we will be asking for a temporary committee to examine this matter. I take it as read that the Group of the European People’s Party and all the other groups will support that.

  Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the investigator for the Council of Europe, Dick Marty, has called allegations of illegal extraordinary renditions credible. If he concludes that they are true, the question for us is what is the degree of complicity of EU governments? They are all rattling off the denials, but this has not satisfied those who have expressed concern or deterred calls for parliamentary or judicial inquiries in a string of European countries. No wonder the US is irritated by European governments’ attempts to evade responsibility and I am glad that the President-in-Office talked about taking that responsibility. Secretary of State Rice pointedly said last week that the US has respected the sovereignty of other countries. That means: ‘don’t rock the boat, guys – we are all in this together’.

A feasible scenario is that, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, understandably keen to offer help to the US in tracking down the perpetrators of that abominable crime, European governments offered intelligence help and facilities to their US ally. However, as the years have gone by, they have got deeper into the mire of illegality. Only by cleaning house and starting afresh on the basis of real respect for the rule of law can we convince our citizens that we are not sacrificing our principles.

The problem is that we are living in an Alice in Wonderland world. The President-in-Office said that Secretary of State Rice’s statements last week should be taken at face value. However, if the US does not tolerate torture inside or outside the United States, why is it resisting the McCain amendment? Why have we had so many twists and turns by the Bush administration, redefining torture so that it does not cover waterboarding, prolonged shackling or induced hypothermia? Secretary of State Rice’s statement begged more questions than it answered.

I welcome Mr Frattini’s statement that we have a duty to investigate. I also welcome his offer of assistance to the Council of Europe. This Parliament must avoid duplicating Dick Marty’s investigation. However, we need a mechanism to draw all the threads together and that means a temporary committee. Then we can assess, in the light of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, what evidence is produced.

I also welcome Mr Frattini’s statement that finding out the truth will strengthen our fight against terrorism by upholding our values. I agree with Mr Poettering – that does not happen often – that this is not an anti-American project. Helping save America and Europe from the disastrous policies of the Bush administration is a pro-American exercise.

  President. You wicked girl!

  Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. (NL) Mr President, Mr Alexander says he believes in the benefits of an informed discussion, but the problem is that we do not have much information to draw on. You are wholly satisfied with the answers given by Mrs Condoleezza Rice and perhaps you may want to share with us why she managed to win you over so convincingly. I can understand that you do not want a diplomatic dustup, but what is now your strategy in order to find out the truth? That is something I should like to know.

The United States claims that it does not tolerate torture, but, as somebody has just asked, can bringing people almost to the point of drowning really not be termed torture? Mrs Ludford has mentioned the McCain amendment in this connection. Surely we should not be palmed off with any sort of American word play? No, indeed not.

Terror suspects are sometimes not released for months, and often claim that they have been very badly treated. It may, of course, be the case that they were misinformed, but, be that as it may, that is not even the point. The point is that whether they have been tortured or not, it is illegal to detain people without a judicial trial.

That is, of course, what is happening in Guantanamo Bay, but it would be too crazy for words if people were to be detained without trial in Europe as well. If that is the case, if people are locked up, or transported illegally, on European soil without any judicial trial, then the EU’s very core values are at stake and the question arises of what we intend to do about it. It is our duty to mount an inquiry into those cases.

Although Commissioner Frattini explained to us the detail of the legal procedures, we will find this out in due course. If Europe’s core values are on the line, we must respond. We can at any rate set up a temporary committee, along the lines of the one that worked so well in the case of Echelon. We can always consider at a later stage whether we want to change this into a parliamentary inquiry committee. Some Members are already collecting signatures for this, but we have seen in the Echelon committee that even a temporary committee of this kind triggers a dynamic quest for the truth, with a public debate that gives people the boldness to speak out, so that public opinion gets noticed and politicians are forced to go further than simply affirm that they have every confidence, just to please some US Minister.

  Giusto Catania, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to inform Minister Alexander that today we are not talking about the fight against terrorism, but about hundreds of flights throughout Europe, about kidnappings and torture carried out by the CIA against European citizens or refugees, and about torture practised in prisons on European soil.

All of this has already emerged from certain elements of the Council of Europe investigation. Commissioner Frattini quite rightly calls on us to look into these events more thoroughly because we have to be able to prove them.

There is an emblematic case which itself contains all these elements and which demonstrates that evidence does exist for all these events. It is the case of Abu Omar, who was kidnapped by CIA agents right in the centre of Milan, transferred to an American base in Italy and tortured for 12 hours; he was then transferred to Egypt, where he was detained and tortured for more than a year. He was finally released and warned not to talk about the abuse and violence he had suffered. He disobeyed the order and 22 days later he disappeared and has not been heard of since.

All that is proven by the clues left behind by the CIA agents who kidnapped him: intercepted mobile telephone calls, calls home, calls to CIA headquarters, hotel credit card payments and even details left on the computer with the route taken by the car.

In my view, all these points need to be looked into; there are 22 arrest warrants out for CIA agents, and we are still waiting for the Italian Government to issue the extradition requests.

Clearly, therefore, the Italian authorities knew about the Abu Omar case, and it is also clear that a great many European governments know about these events. Indeed, the agreement signed between the United States and the European Union in Athens in January 2003 states that the use of transit sites for the transfer of foreign criminals needs to be stepped up.

I believe that we have to find out the truth; we have to find out about the torture and detentions; we have to find out about the flights and transfers. A committee of inquiry needs to be set up to shed light on all these points. We have a duty to find out, and that will be for the good of Europe, because it cannot preach human rights and yet tolerate violations and abuse.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. (NL) Mr President, if it is true that the Americans detain and torture terror suspects on European soil, then this is a grave blow to mutual trust. I do not, however, like the keenness of some people here for serious measures. The United States of America is still the EU Member States’ biggest ally, and nothing has been proven as yet.

The Bush administration does leave something to be desired, though, when it comes to the transparency of the detention system; prisoners can be detained for years without the court intervening, and it is also unclear in what ways they are interrogated. I would therefore call on the United States to respect the rule of law. Senator McCain was right to table an amendment in order to define the rules of interrogation more precisely. It would become President Bush if he did not oppose this by using his veto against it. The fight against terror is tough, but the law, as we in the European Union and the United States know it, must be upheld. Together with the US, the EU must find a way in which mutual trust can be strengthened.

  Romano Maria La Russa, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the extremely serious matter raised by certain newspapers, and if what for now remains mere supposition or fantasy is actually confirmed, then I too consider that Parliament has a duty to play its part in shedding light on the matter and ensuring that there is complete transparency in the relations between the European Union and all non-EU countries. I believe, however, that it would have been more useful right now to spend our time debating more concrete facts.

I do not want to go too far back in time, but I should like somebody to stand up and tell me whether in those days the United States trampled on the sovereignty of European Member States when it sacrificed thousands and thousands of its men to save Europe. It is always you on the left who remind me of such things. Well, then, are the people of the United States our friends or not? They cannot be our friends when it suits us and not our friends when it does not suit us. I still do not understand how even people who have important roles in the institutions and who ought to hold objective views and avoid making destabilising allegations can possibly utter such damning statements when there is actually no evidence for the events and, inter alia, when the very countries involved deny any illegality.

Nobody, of course, wants to deny Parliament’s crucial role in guaranteeing and monitoring respect for human rights and protection of the freedoms of individuals and peoples. Even so, nobody is authorised to hold court and to pass judgment based on suppositions and suspicions, just on the basis of some newspaper articles.

Nonetheless, I declare myself in favour of setting up a working party to look into the matter more thoroughly, making use of the information supplied by the Council of Europe. According to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe is the only institution charged with investigating possible human rights violations in the Member States. I would not want this whole attitude – this aversion to a country that is Europe’s friend – to be just the product of a perverse feeling, which is noticeable in the speeches of certain Members of this Parliament, although certainly not in my political group.

To conclude, I sense that a veiled but widespread feeling of ideological anti-Americanism reigns in this Parliament, and especially in certain of its constituent committees. Certain groups seem to be permeated by a visceral, deep-seated anti-American, anti-Western feeling, which clearly reveals old Soviet friendships that have never dimmed.

(Applause)

  President. I see we have some Americans in the Chamber!

  Philip Claeys (NI). (NL) Mr President, Commissioner Frattini’s reaction to the reports that the CIA is secretly transporting and interrogating terror suspects in Europe was prompt, dynamic and forceful. If the European Union were to respond with the same measure of energy, force and speed against terrorism itself as it does to the alleged CIA flights, we would certainly be on the right track.

It is, of course, true that the fight against terrorism must be waged within the bounds set by the law, but the European Union has a credibility problem. We are always prepared to observe a minute’s silence for the victims of terrorist attacks such as those in Madrid and London, and even those of 11 September in New York and Washington, but, when it comes to taking measures and taking action which must help prevent such terrorist attacks in future, we fail to deliver, being primarily interested in safeguarding the rights of the terror suspects. It follows that this European Parliament’s selective indignation is misplaced.

If the European Union were able to point to just one specific success in the fight against terrorism, the series of imputations against the United States might yet be acceptable, but it cannot. Maybe we ought to stop teaching other people lessons in morality, now that it is, for example, apparent that the Council, further to the Palestinian parliamentary elections, will be establishing official contacts with organisations such as Hamas, and Hezbollah, the former of which – let it be noted – is on the EU list of terrorist organisations!

This hypocrisy should stop as a matter of urgency and the legal framework in which the fight against terrorism must be carried out must be tailored to today’s needs.

  Barbara Kudrycka (PPE-DE).  – (PL) Mr President, the protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights and compliance with international commitments and conventions are among the primary concerns of the members of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. They are supremely important values, which allow all the citizens of the EU’s democratic Member States to live and work in safety and harmony. I therefore agree that while we must fight terrorism effectively, in so doing protecting the lives of citizens, this fight must be conducted in accordance with the international conventions that are binding upon us. We must also ensure that the right to dignity of all human beings is respected, even in the case of terrorists.

On 11 September 2001, terrorists declared war on our civilisation and its underpinning Judaeo-Christian values. America took up the challenge by limiting the reach of terrorist organisations’ deadly schemes. We should not forget that the fight against terrorist fanatics is not merely a brief episode, but something that will continue for decades. Following the attacks in Madrid and London, Europe joined in the fight by actively proposing courses of action that would be effective in the fight against terrorism, but that would also ensure respect for fundamental rights and human freedoms. By this I also mean the rights and freedoms of terrorists. In view of the above, torture should not have been used and must not be used in any EU Member State. We will therefore vote in favour of the appointment of a temporary committee to investigate issues surrounding the alleged transport, detention and even torture of prisoners in EU Member States. At the same time, however, it is crucial that the work of this committee should not heighten anti-American sentiments in Europe, and that its conclusions and findings should not be taken as read.

I hope that the work carried out by the committee will allow us to strike a much-needed balance between two values that are of enormous significance for every European citizen. I refer to the protection of the right to life and of life itself, by means of effective measures that ensure our safety, and the protection of fundamental human rights. These latter include both the right to legal representation for those suspected of crimes such as terrorism and the right to a fair trial.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, today, in this House, we have adopted a piece of legislation that is of vital importance to the war on terrorism. Thanks to good cooperation with the British presidency of the Council and with our colleagues on the Committee, particularly with our coordinator Mrs Roure, the overwhelming majority of Social Democrats have endorsed this act as an important weapon in the fight against terrorism, while being no less determined in our opposition to torture of any kind.

I am amazed that Mr Alexander, Commissioner Frattini and the future President of the Council, Chancellor Schüssel, are prepared, on the basis of no more than a few statements by Mrs Rice, to believe that the Americans are not practising torture, for that is something of which I would like to see concrete evidence. All of you, after all, have heard of Guantanamo, and of Senator McCain, who is no kind of lunatic, but is behind a specific and well-founded campaign against torture, particularly that engaged in by the United States of America. That is why it is important that we in this House should get to the bottom of what has been going on and, without prejudice or prior judgment, but also without averting or shutting our eyes to the facts, should examine whether such things – ranging from abduction to torture – have been engaged in on European soil.

What we want is the truth and nothing but the truth; that is what we need this committee for.

The last thing I have to say has to do with our relationship with the USA, and this is where I agree with Mrs Kudrycka, who spoke before me. In campaigning against torture, we are campaigning for that America that is as opposed to torture as we are, which I believe to be the majority, represented in any case by those like Senator McCain. This is our common cause – Europe and the USA against not only terrorism, but also torture!

  Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, it is up to the political groups to decide to get to the bottom of these allegations at a time when everyone is feeling very uneasy.

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs will take the information provided by the political groups into consideration as far as possible. I personally am convinced that we need to re-examine four main points.

Firstly, we need to look into the issue of extraordinary rendition. Have the United States engaged in this practice in respect of people suspected of terrorism? Can it be regarded as legal, if by any chance it has taken place on the territory of the European Union? In these circumstances, we need to bear in mind Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly with regard to legal guarantees, and also the provisions of the agreements between the United States and the European Union on legal cooperation in criminal matters and on extradition, and the bilateral agreements in that respect. We must, when examining this issue, take account of the problems raised by illegal abductions and the treatment of prisoners.

Secondly, has this practice occurred on EU territory since 1 January 2002? Have flights been organised to transport people suspected of terrorist acts? Where were they detained? What was their status? To help it find answers to all these questions, the Committee on Civil Liberties has, under Annex 6 of the Rules of Procedure setting out its powers and responsibilities, a legal basis for triggering the warning system if there is a risk of violation of fundamental rights; it can therefore set to work if the political groups give it the opportunity and work in agreement with the Council of Europe or, in any event, cooperate with the temporary committee that will be set up. Nevertheless, I would ask you not to wait.

  Cem Özdemir (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was in response to the terrible images from Abu Ghraib, if not before, that a debate was unleashed in the USA too as to what was or was not permissible in legitimate war on terrorism. I would like, on behalf of my group, to reiterate what has been said by the others. We welcome the efforts made by Senator McCain and others like him in the US Congress towards the outlawing of torture. Torture is an un-American activity; at the same time, though, it has no place in Europe either, and so it is legitimate to ask why a country such as Switzerland, on seven occasions, refused to allow military aircraft to overfly its territory, evidently suspecting that they were carrying prisoners illegally. What is it about these other countries? What information have they had from their secret service? Why is it that, so far, only the Danish Foreign Ministry has acted consistently in stating that actions contrary to international conventions will not be permitted in Danish airspace? What are all the other European countries doing?

We serve as a role model for other countries around the world in which there is no democracy and in which human rights are under threat. We have to be an example to them, and at all times!

(Applause)

  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, yesterday, the Council of Europe’s investigator Dick Marty stated that the suspicion had been confirmed that the CIA had, on many occasions, used European states’ airspace and territory to transport prisoners to interrogation at secret locations. This reinforces my conviction that our Parliament must, without delay, appoint a committee to investigate all such accusations.

The very gravest of charges, relating to the abduction and torture of human beings, have been laid against the United States and Member States of the European Union; that much is in the public domain. As the Commissioner has called for evidence, I will ask him whether the case of Khaled El Masri, a German citizen, does not itself speak volumes. Neither the US administration nor the European governments concerned have, to date, come up with an appropriate response. For the sake of the public at large, for the sake of the EU’s credibility as an international advocate for respect for human rights, it is vital that these things be cleared up once and for all. There must be no no-go areas in the European Union!

As representatives of the citizens of the European Union, we are under an obligation to shed light where there is darkness. The fact is that what is at stake here is nothing more or less than the defence of the most fundamental values upon which the European Union rests. The prohibition of torture is among those minimum human rights standards that every state must observe most stringently; it is part of binding international law, and it is one of the core values of the European Union. If the government of a Member State gave active assistance to, or even merely abetted, the USA’s abduction of people, as part of the so-called war on terror, in order that they might be tortured in secret locations, then that government has abandoned the fundamental consensus on which the European Union rests and on which membership of it depends, and that is what must be examined in minute detail.

(Applause)

  Mario Borghezio (IND/DEM). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a few days ago in Ceuta and Melilla, some members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs were personally able to verify the gentle methods used by the Guardia Civil, to which the current Spanish Government has entrusted the sensitive task of turning back illegal immigrants. The MEPs were also able to admire the brilliant invention of the double fence system in which the illegal immigrants are then dealt with, as we have heard.

The truth is that this did not generate all the scandal that everyone has been talking about these days, which was due to some news items that appeared in the press. I believe that these allegations should first be verified by a committee. Condoleezza Rice maintains that European governments should also accept responsibility and that the United States acted with the more or less explicit consent of the governments in question.

European policy should, in turn, abandon the hypocrisy of the idea held by everyone that terrorism must be fought above all by using intelligence. Before anything else, let us also ask ourselves why we have tolerated the violation or abuse of the right to asylum by many people who have then abused that right to set up terrorist training and support centres here in Europe, in our cities.

  Eoin Ryan (UEN). – Mr President, I support the cooperation which the European Union and the United States have undertaken for the fight against terrorism. Terrorism is a huge threat to all of us and to all of our citizens and it is something that has to be fought in the years ahead.

I am pro-American, but that does not mean that I am not going to question the US Government for the presumed use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation, illegal detention and/or torture of prisoners. We should all recall that this story emanated in the United States, where there is deep unease about what may be happening. We should also recall that America, like all EU countries, has signed up to international conventions protecting human rights and against torture. The provisions of these conventions must be honoured and we cannot arbitrarily throw them out of the window when it does not suit us.

The European Union is at the forefront in protecting and upholding the human rights of all its citizens. It would be wrong for us in Europe to ignore what is happening. I would go as far as to say that it is a derogation of our public duty to not ask questions about this serious issue. Serious clarifications must be given by the US Government to the issues that have been raised. We have a right to ask questions and demand answers from the US authorities.

I am tired of people saying that when you question America, somehow you are not one of its friends. This is not the truth. As friends, we should be allowed to ask questions. I quote one of the most famous Americans, Thomas Jefferson, when he said, ‘I have never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friendship’. Because we are debating this issue today, certainly, as far as I am concerned, I have no intention of withdrawing my friendship from the United States and I hope nobody else has.

Serious human rights issues are at stake. That is the reality of the situation and it is an issue which, rightly, will not go away. We have a right to answers and the US Government should cooperate with all of us to ensure that clarification on the issues raised is secured and that human rights and human dignity are not swept under the carpet in this fight. It is absolutely essential that Europe sticks to what it believes in and we believe in human rights. At the same time, of course, we believe that terrorism should be fought in all ways. We cannot sweep under the carpet things that we believe and hold true to us, because in this fight, it is absolutely essential that Parliament stands up to this.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI).  – (PL) Mr President, we say yes to a committee, but no to anti-American hysteria. That, in a nutshell, is our position on the appointment of a parliamentary body to investigate media reports of CIA prisons in Europe. This matter should be cleared up, but I would warn against using it as a convenient weapon in the fight against the nasty Americans. It is only right that we should stand up for human rights, but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should keep things in proportion, and make a distinction between regimes that base their very existence on brutal violations of human rights and countries in which human rights are only occasionally infringed.

Commissioner Frattini is a very nice man, if perhaps a little overzealous, and I would very much like to believe him when he tells us that there have not been any prisons of this kind in Europe. I am afraid, however, that we should be listening to someone else’s words on the matter. I refer to the head of the CIA, who has not denied the reports of secret prisons on our continent.

We are in favour of a committee being appointed, but we would not want such a committee to become a platform for anti-American rhetoric. One of the many reasons for this is that America has several faces. As I said yesterday, we must defend human rights and reject double standards. At the same time, however, universal values such as human rights must not be used as weapons in our political battles. We should bear this in mind when we appoint a committee.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, when it comes to protecting human rights, we have to be clear – either those rights have been violated or they have not. Torture is still torture whether it takes place in Iraq, Afghanistan, China or Pinochet’s Chile. If there have been cases of torture in a democratic country, with the tacit acceptance of an elected government, it does not stop being torture; it is an embarrassment to that country and its government.

We must first condemn outright any act that may constitute a violation of human rights, whether that be humiliation, illegal imprisonment or the detention of prisoners without legal protection. I therefore commend Mr Frattini on taking such a clear stand. The EU, which created, and is in the process of strengthening, the area of freedom, security and justice, cannot allow such violations to be practised or facilitated on its territory.

There has been mention in this debate of statements made by Condoleezza Rice, which left no room for doubt. The problem is that we are left with the uncomfortable impression that there are two strands of rhetoric on this issue; it is as though within the Bush Administration there were the Rice strand and the Cheney strand.

The New York Times reported last week that there was substantial evidence of torture by US interrogators, and NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, which have reported serious and alarming incidents.

The United States is not helped by the continuing Guantanamo situation, by Donald Rumsfeld’s refusal to authorise a UN humanitarian mission, by the doubts expressed in a recent interview by Head of CIA, Peter Goss, as to whether degrading treatment can be considered torture, or by President Bush’s threat to block the McCain amendment, which would ban the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees.

I must congratulate the United Kingdom on the law lords’ recent decision that information obtained under torture cannot be used as evidence in court. In the Europe of values and freedoms, we want to know the facts, and, if something inappropriate has taken place, we want to make sure that it does not happen again. In democratic Europe we do not convict people on the basis of a priori assumptions, without any evidence. The EU must therefore make every effort to cooperate with the Council of Europe and with the ongoing investigation. This is the best way of ensuring that the truth will emerge and that our values will prevail.

  Martine Roure (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, the Council of Europe’s investigation into the existence of secret American detention centres in Europe has made no progress in five weeks. According to the Swiss Parliamentary rapporteur Dick Marty, all the information they have gathered tends to reinforce the credibility of the allegations, but he has been unable to get precise answers to his questions. It is therefore our duty, as the representatives of the European citizens, to demand that an investigation be conducted to find out the precise details, on a case-by-case basis, of circumstances that may give rise to offences and to violations of human rights.

If the information we are hearing is true, that means that serious crimes have been committed on EU territory. With regard to torture, let us not beat about the bush. The CIA admits that it uses sleep deprivation, exposure to cold and suffocation; if that is not torture, what is it? If these centres are admitted to exist, we will call for severe penalties for those responsible. If, on the other hand, the rumours turn out to be unfounded, we must remove the doubts for the sake of our credibility. All of our Member States are concerned and we must bear that in mind.

The EU, by way of its Charter of Fundamental Rights, can – as we all say so often – be a model. Therefore, we cannot tolerate any attacks on human rights on EU territory.

  Bronisław Geremek (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to start by saying that it is very important for a temporary committee to be set up, not only to confirm that the European Union is greatly concerned by respect for human rights, but also to find out the whole truth of this matter. I am pleased to have heard Mr Alexander and Mr Frattini give the European Union’s point of view, but I must also say that I was surprised to hear Commissioner Frattini, and the representatives of the European Commission, faithfully repeat the rumours that two Eastern European countries, Poland and Romania, housed detention centres run by the US secret services.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that, to my knowledge, Poland has had no detention camps, American or otherwise, where prisoners are illegally detained since 1989. If they were to exist, I would want that fact to come out. On the other hand, if they do not exist, I would like the opprobrium piled on my country without any evidence, by rumours, to be lifted at some point in the future. I want the temporary committee to set to work in order to find out the whole truth in this matter, and I confidently await the day when it will tell that truth for my fellow Members to hear.

(Applause)

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, this issue is a very important and fundamental one. It must, of course, be said at the outset that, whatever criticisms we may have to make, the fight against terrorism is of immense importance and that Europe and America must cooperate closely in waging it. I do not believe, however, that it can be won unless it is fought on the basis of the rule of law and of human rights. It is now for us to determine whether these conditions have been complied with or disregarded, and the relevant evidence needs to be forthcoming as a matter of urgency. If the West as a whole is not to risk losing its credibility, it is vital that any misdemeanours that have occurred are brought to light without delay and that salami tactics are dispensed with, or else we will be lumbered for months on end with the same sort of credibility problem that we had after Secretary of State Powell’s presentation to the United Nations on the Iraq war, and in other instances too. It has to be clear to us that what is at stake is the credibility of the West as a whole, and it is in the interests of that that we must act promptly, together, and in a responsible manner, or else we will lose our capacities for action.

I think it is a good thing that – as Commissioner Frattini has made perfectly clear to the two committees that have dealt with this – the Council and the Commission are working with the Council of Europe, and at its specific request, to arrive at clarifications on which the temporary committee will be able to draw when, as I expect it will be, it is brought into being.

Whatever problems we may have, we have to see that these are not lines dividing Europe from America, but that debates are going on in both of them and that we have an ally in the shape of the US Senate, which voted, by 98 votes, to endorse Senator McCain’s motion that torture cannot be an instrument in the fight against terrorism. That shows what the other great democracy on the other side of the Atlantic is capable of, and this gives us our starting point: what the democrats and the supporters of the rule of law, both in Europe and America, have in common, is not only the capacity to combat terrorism, but also the capacity to do so under credible conditions and while maintaining the rule of law.

(Applause)

  Jan Marinus Wiersma (PSE). (NL) Mr President, we do of course take extremely seriously the case that we are discussing today, which has to do with possible abuses that touch the very heart of our democracy and our opinions on human rights. The statements we have received from the US so far are unsatisfactory. The story does not stand up to scrutiny. I do not want to enter into the detail of it, but the explanation by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, does, indeed, beg more questions, to which we want answers.

Something to which reference has already been made in this Chamber, and which, to my mind, plays a significant role, is the fact that we are also concerned about the USA’s attitude to the fight against international terrorism. In Guantanamo Bay, the United States has, since early 2002, been detaining hundreds of people without any form of trial or independent control. In the fight against terrorism, American politicians regularly talk about the need to use unconventional methods. The US has been known to apply its own rules in this respect.

Although the US administration assures us that it does not use torture and that all human rights are respected, it still adopts a hesitant attitude towards Senator McCain’s proposals to improve anti-torture legislation and to declare it fully applicable also outside of the US.

The European Union has the duty to guarantee the letter and spirit of the treaties and guard our values. There is currently insufficient information available to assume that nothing is wrong, but the European Parliament also has its own responsibility. We have to consider the possible involvement of Member States and future EU Member States in the matters in hand, and, perhaps, the European Union’s relations with the United States. As a directly-elected institution, we in this House have a duty to find out whether there is any truth in the allegations.

The first impressions gleaned by the Council of Europe’s rapporteur, Dick Marty, strengthen us in the belief that an inquiry of our own is certainly not a luxury. We should therefore, as a matter of urgency, launch our own inquiry, possibly in cooperation with the Council of Europe, so as to try to find real answers to the questions we are still left with, whereby a temporary committee should be set up as soon as possible, to be followed by a real inquiry committee if that turns out to be necessary.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck (ALDE). (NL) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the allegations with which we are dealing are extremely serious ones. If confirmed, they constitute a plain breach of the principles listed in Article 6 of the Treaty, namely freedom, democracy, protection of human rights and the fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.

Since the latest change to the Treaty, Article 7 offers the possibility of acting against a Member State on account of serious violations of these principles. Such action may go as far as suspending certain of that Member State’s rights, including its right to vote. It is precisely for that reason that we need to act with the greatest caution. It would go too far to my mind if I were to commit to the mechanism of Article 7 being activated at this stage.

Needless to say, I too am highly indignant about the CIA’s suspected actions and I am extremely concerned that Member States may have feigned ignorance of them, but a sanction mechanism cannot be activated simply on the basis of indignation.

For the first time in history, Article 7 offers us the opportunity of penalising the misconduct of Member States. This mechanism can be activated only when sufficient and conclusive elements have been collected. I trust that this Parliament and its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs will do this with great meticulousness.

  Józef Pinior (PSE).  – (PL) Mr President, it is self-evident that terrorism must be fought effectively, and that this fight must therefore be ruthless in certain respects. Intelligence activities, special units and, in many cases, operations on the fringes of the law play a key role in the fight against terrorism. At the same time, however, the war on terror is being waged in defence of fundamental liberal and democratic values. The foundations upon which these values are based include the habeas corpus, or in other words the right to personal inviolability, the ban on holding anyone in prison without a warrant and the ban on the use of force to extract testimonies during interrogations, which equates to an absolute ban on torture.

The CIA-run centres operate outside the reach both of the Geneva Conventions and of the American justice system, civil and military alike. The same authorities carry out investigations, make arrests, detain people for months on end, stop at nothing when interrogating them and, in some cases, decide to release them. The level of control exercised over the activities of the intelligence services is one of the chief indicators of the quality of democracy in this new global era.

A dangerous trend can be observed in Europe. I refer to the fact that the European Union is being treated like an economic club, the sole aim of which is to develop the common market. The European Union is not merely a club of this kind, however, but also a political community. Membership of this community requires the signature of the Treaty on European Union, which guarantees the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

I say these words exactly 24 years after martial law was imposed in my home country, Poland. One of the characteristic features of this period was the fact that those suspected of carrying out trade union activities would be held in detention centres for months on end without having been sentenced.

I am speaking today on behalf of all the citizens of the European Union for whom human rights, political freedoms and civil liberties constitute the very reason for the existence of the Community. We have a right to know the truth. The European Union’s institutions must investigate this matter thoroughly, and ensure that the governments of the Member States abide by the Treaty on European Union within the territory of the EU.

  Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, we know with certainty that: a) the USA have in the past engaged in the torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners, as in Abu Ghraib; b) the president of the USA has threatened to veto the amendment by the US Senate prohibiting torture of prisoners outside US borders; why did you not mention that also, Mr Alexander, instead of simply submissively welcoming the statement by Mrs Rice? and c) the US Congress, to its credit, frequently investigates accusations of this sort.

We do not know with certainty: a) if the USA or European countries run or used to run secret detention centres and where; b) if the USA have removed European citizens or other people from European soil in order to transfer them, interrogate them and, possibly, torture them; c) if European governments or authorities have tolerated or participated in such illegal activities.

The question, therefore, is what the European Parliament will do now. Will it also investigate this or will it wait for others to do so? If we do not take direct action, then the elected representatives of our peoples will end up monitoring revelations in the international press and will react simply as commentators to the facts.

I therefore support the immediate setting up of a parliamentary committee but, apart from the question of detention centres, I believe that you should turn your attention, Mr President, to a broader question which is at the root of all today's evils: the relationship between the fight against terrorism and the protection of citizens' fundamental rights. Unfortunately, this relationship – including after Mr Alexander's statement – tends thoughtlessly, ungracefully and even illegally to incline very dangerously towards the former and away from the latter.

  Giovanni Claudio Fava (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, unlike Minister Alexander, who is very young and very enthusiastic, this Parliament is not at all happy with the statements made by Condoleezza Rice – neither with what she said nor, above all, with what she chose not to say. There is no anti-American feeling in this; let us just say that the balance between security and liberty, between human rights and the fight against terrorism, has been tipped away from the side of human rights.

This Parliament is no longer content with the solemn assurances made by the governments involved. History is full of lies told equally solemnly by those very same governments, and the Iraqi chemical weapons affair is a reminder of that.

At the moment, says the Commission, there is no proof. We have to reach an agreement on what we mean by proof. Do we mean a public admission by a prime minister appearing on television and saying, ‘Yes, it is true: I have allowed secret prisons run by US secret service agents to operate in my country, and torture has been used in them’? I think it would be difficult to expect that kind of proof.

Mr President, we believe that the statements by Condoleezza Rice – who claims that many human lives in Europe have been saved because of preventive actions by the CIA – are more than an admission of guilt.

I should also like to mention that we consider the need for proof sacrosanct only for governments, but sometimes forget about it in the case of citizens, who are quickly transformed from suspects into terrorists without the necessary legal guarantees.

We have many good reasons to call for a committee of inquiry to be set up, not in order to make accusations but to seek the truth. We appreciate the firmness shown by Commissioner Frattini and endorse his support for the work done by the Council of Europe, but we cannot delegate our responsibility for political vigilance and our duty to ascertain the truth to any other institutional body: it is our job and our responsibility.

  Lilli Gruber (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the Resistance and the Cold War, people died under torture in every one of our countries in order to protect the most precious thing we have: freedom.

It was out of this sacrifice, too, that Europe emerged, founded on a specific idea: respect for the law as an inalienable prerequisite for freedom and democracy, with no ifs or buts. The choice is not between the life or death of one or more people, but between the civilisation of democracy and the barbarity of arbitrary power.

Our continent has millennia of experience of torture and knows that not only is torture unreliable in the information it extorts, but above all it irremediably corrupts those same civilised values that it claims it has to protect.

It is an insult to our freedom and intelligence, as well as vile blackmail, to claim that torture has helped to thwart even a single terrorist attack in Europe or elsewhere in the world.

It is now our duty to discover the whole truth about the reports of the kidnapping and mistreatment of alleged terrorists by the CIA and their illegal transfer to other countries, with the complicity of certain European governments.

The action by the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office on the disappearance of the imam Abu Omar, for which 22 members of the CIA are under investigation, and the Council of Europe initiatives are tangible expressions of the rule of law. Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

We must play our part by setting up a parliamentary committee; it does not matter whether it is an investigative, temporary or ad hoc committee, but it must undertake to discover the truth. Our Parliament also calls for a different United States, one not subject to the fanaticism and economic interests of the George W. Bush Administration.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, I judge this to have been a valuable debate and I am grateful to all honourable Members for the varied contributions we have heard this afternoon. As I made clear in my introductory remarks to this debate, the security and liberty of all our people are important issues, perhaps the most important issues that our governments presently face. I also said that it was right for democracies and their institutions to debate the questions that arise when defending both principles in our modern world, vital that we recognise the unprecedented threat from contemporary terrorism and the longevity of that threat, and crucial that we all respect the rule of law in the process. I said it was important to recognise the need for governments to take tangible steps to fulfil their principal responsibility – the security of their people, right to respect the word of other sovereign governments including our allies, and incumbent on European governments and institutions to lead by example and conduct informed debate.

Overall I think we have achieved those objectives in the conversation and discussions we have had on the threat this afternoon. The images of the terrorist attacks – on commuter and underground trains in Madrid and London, places of worship, diplomatic premises, banks in Istanbul, hotels in Jordan, residential compounds in Saudi Arabia, and restaurants and bars in Bali – the list goes on – are not computer-generated. They are a reality with which we live. They are the new and frightening reality of our modern world. The contemporary terrorist is not content to limit himself or herself to conventional attacks. If he can, he will acquire and use chemical and biological means to reach his ends.

On respect for the rule of law, I mentioned the question of torture – a central issue that featured in our debate – in my opening remarks. Let me reiterate the position of the United Kingdom Government. The prohibition against torture is absolute. The British Government, like all European governments, unreservedly condemns its use. We never use it for any purpose, including to obtain information. We never instigate, condone or otherwise support others using it. Indeed, we condemn it. We have worked hard with our international partners to eradicate an abhorrent practice.

On government action to counter the threat within the rule of law, I am pleased that under the UK Presidency the European Union has agreed a new counter-terrorism strategy and thereby provided a clearer framework in which Member States can take forward their national and European work, striking a balance between citizens’ rights to life and to liberty. These are not just words. The recent extradition of a man from Italy to the United Kingdom to face charges connected with the terrorist attacks in London in July would not have taken place so quickly but for European arrest warrants. That is a practical example of European Union counter-terrorism and judicial cooperation.

On respect for sovereign governments, I remind honourable Members of the words of the United States Secretary of State on 5 December 2005. She stated, and again I quote directly for completeness: ‘The United States has respected – and will continue to respect – the sovereignty of other countries. The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture. The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured. The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured’.

Of course, a number of honourable Members have raised the issue of the response of European Union Member State governments to the allegations that have received wide publicity in recent months. Let me just for a moment digress from my responsibilities as the President-in-Office of the European Union and share with this Chamber the approach of the United Kingdom Government to dealing with these very serious allegations. We have researched the question of US rendition via the United Kingdom carefully and we have not identified any occasions since 11 September 2001 or earlier during the period in office of the Bush administration when we received a request from the United States for a rendition through United Kingdom territory or airspace, nor are we otherwise aware of such a case.

On providing a lead to our constituents with informed discussion, it is right that the Council of Europe be allowed to conduct a factually based examination of how its members ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has featured prominently in this afternoon’s debate.

This debate today has raised numerous points – many held with great conviction – for the Council of Europe to address in its coming inquiry. For its part, I can assure this Chamber that the United Kingdom will respond fully to the Council’s queries. I trust and hope that other Member States will do so as well.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this afternoon’s debate has revealed a widely held position in this Parliament, and it is one that I too fully endorse: there can be no compromises with terrorists, but there can be no compromises, either, on the protection of people’s fundamental rights. On the one hand, we have to clarify matters and discover the whole truth – a truth that we may or may not like, but the truth all the same. We have to find out the truth and, as Mr Schulz rightly said, avoid making hasty judgments.

I should like in particular to reply to Mr Geremek, whose speech caught my attention. I said in my introduction, regarding your country, Poland, exactly what you are calling for, which is that I have respectfully noted the solemn denial by the Polish Government authorities and that I do not believe that individual European countries can be regarded as being on trial or under suspicion, but that the truth needs to be sought in respect of the whole territory of Europe: all the countries of Europe and all the candidate countries. I specifically ruled out any possibility of claiming that this search for the truth only concerns Poland and/or Romania. The truth needs to be ascertained everywhere.

Part of the debate on Europe’s essential values concerns both the citizens’ right to security – and on this point I believe the European Parliament has already said on several occasions that international cooperation with the United States is indispensable if we want to win the fight against terrorism – and the duty of the European Union and of all democratic countries to respect the dignity of every individual.

Today you have voted by a large majority for an important measure, a useful measure in the fight against terrorism, and one that achieves a balance between security and freedom. It sets a good example which, I believe, should be a benchmark for us all. It is an exemplary balance between the fight against terrorism and the protection of people’s fundamental rights.

As Europeans we have worked alongside the United States against terrorism and we shall continue to do so. For instance, ladies and gentlemen, I regret to say that the extradition treaty specifically aimed at suspected terrorists, which was signed in 2003, has been ratified by the United States but not by the European Union Member States. You realise how important it would be to have a clear extradition treaty in force today, containing strict rules including, of course, a ban on inhumane treatment. This goes to show that unfortunately we Europeans also have to do things a little faster.

Finally, I believe it is possible to interpret the action and efforts to seek the truth not as an action directed against the United States but, as someone said, as an action to seek the truth that will strengthen us all. We shall all be stronger, whatever the outcome, because the truth can, I repeat, either make us discover something or make us discover that this something did not happen.

In any case, the truth would strengthen us because, in the US Constitution, the Treaty on European Union, the Nice Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights, in all of these documents – and I mentioned the US Constitution in first place – the principle of human rights is fundamental and absolute. I wonder, therefore, why we should not also work together in this area, to ensure that those solemn principles are put into practice. That will be my personal commitment.

  President. I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday at 10.00.