President. The next item is the joint debate on

- the report by Geoffrey Van Orden (A6-0342/2005), on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the state of preparedness for EU membership of Bulgaria (2005/2204(INI)), and

- the report by Pierre Moscovici (A6-0344/2005), on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the extent of Romania's readiness for accession to the European Union (2005/2205(INI)).

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, it is only six weeks since this House last debated Bulgaria’s progress towards European Union accession. I have been back to Bulgaria since then, as indeed has the President of Parliament. We met the President and the Prime Minister of Bulgaria and many ministers. I visited a children’s home in an area that had been badly affected by floods and a factory that had benefited from EU funding. I had discussions with the Foreign Minister, the Interior Minister, the President of the Supreme Court and police chiefs, including those running the national organisation for combating organised crime. I also met the chairmen of key committees of the parliament and representatives of all political parties. None of them seemed to be under any illusion about the work that needs to be done, or indeed the urgency of addressing the areas that have been highlighted by the Commission and the Parliament as being still of serious concern. Many however, are increasingly alarmed that Bulgaria’s accession is being caught up in the wider controversy over the future extent of the EU and over the EU budget.

Mr President, bearing in mind that I am otherwise speaking for my current political group in this debate, I hope you will excuse me if I make two personal comments on these matters.

Firstly, many of us are disappointed that following the defeat of the Constitution, the opportunity has not been seized to have a wide ranging and open discussion about the nature and direction of the EU in order to take full account of the real wishes of our citizens and make it more relevant to the needs of the 21st century.

Secondly, as Mr Barroso observed this morning, there is a structural problem in the budget. I am not sure that he and I would agree on what that problem is. To my mind, it is the fact that some 40% of the EU budget is spent on the common agricultural policy and it is also the fact that the United Kingdom, year on year for twenty years, has been paying double the amount in net terms into the EU budget, even with her abatement, in comparison with a country such as France that has a similar-sized economy.

Let me revert now to my rapporteur’s role. The point is that accession countries such as Bulgaria should certainly not be disadvantaged because of those wider issues. The timing of accession should not be vulnerable to unrelated concerns about future enlargement. Let us remember that neither Bulgaria nor Romania form part of future enlargement rounds; they are part of the previous enlargement. Their accession is already secured. Indeed, their budgetary arrangements for the first two years after accession are also secure. I am sure the Commissioner will confirm this.

Bulgaria’s financial provisions are fixed from 2007 to 2009 in the Accession Treaty, Title III, which was signed on 25 April this year. These determine the amounts Bulgaria will pay into the EU budget in various forms, as well as what she will receive in cohesion funding, nuclear decommissioning assistance, the transition facility, the Schengen facility, agriculture payments and other structural actions.

So, leaving aside any negative attitudes to enlargement in general that have begun to develop in some countries, what are the substantive obstacles to be overcome by Bulgaria in the next few months?

Firstly, the Accession Treaty must be ratified by all Member States. So far, only seven have done so, Parliament urges the remaining 18 Member States to ratify as soon as possible.

Secondly, there is the question of the precise timing of accession. Parliament supports the common objective of Bulgaria’s accession to the EU on 1 January 2007, provided that certain matters of serious concern are dealt with. Without this firm target, a major incentive to increased effort by the Bulgarian authorities is removed. They are making an increased effort. I can report that in the past month a further six major legislative acts have progressed through the Bulgarian National Assembly and I am advised that key constitutional changes that we have called for will be presented to the National Assembly this year.

However, while legislative change is essential, I cannot re-emphasise too strongly the need for tangible and concrete outcomes. We must see the evidence of change, particularly in the vital areas of justice and policing and the fight against organised crime and corruption. It is this area, more than any other, that has been the focus of my report on behalf of Parliament. There are, of course, other areas of concern, including child welfare and the support for and integration of the Roma communities.

I commend my report to Parliament. It had the widest possible support in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I regret that the GUE/NGL Group has chosen to re-table amendments that were rejected by the committee. With the exception of my own Amendment 16, I do not recommend support for any other amendments.

I urge the Bulgarian authorities to take very seriously the need to deliver on reform. The changes are, of course, beneficial in themselves, not just as a prerequisite for EU membership. I ask the Commission to ensure that Parliament remains fully involved on a timely basis in any consideration of the use of safeguard clauses.

1 January 2007 is an achievable date for Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union.

  Pierre Moscovici (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by echoing Mr Van Orden’s comment on an extremely decisive point: the issue of funding. Even though I do not entirely agree with his way of thinking – which will not surprise him – I share his concern regarding the financial perspective, which will neither enable the enlargement of ten new Member States so far to succeed, nor allow us to prepare for the next enlargement under the proper conditions.

Having said that, I would like to refer you to the spirit of my report, which is to prepare as well as possible for Romania’s accession in 2007, because I too think that both Romania and Bulgaria will be able to accede on 1 January 2007. The report I am presenting aims to be a useful and effective instrument for the coming months. The Commission’s report, which Mr Rehn presented on 25 October, was also exemplary in this regard. I would like to thank the Commission once again for its work and, at its roots, the report I am presenting to Parliament follows the same way of thinking as the Commission’s.

I would like to reaffirm the European Parliament’s friendship towards Romania and our desire to work towards a common objective – to enable enlargement to 27 countries following the fall of Communism and the great liberation movement in Eastern Europe – but, in parallel with that, we must stress that we are serious in our requirements and that our criteria are firmly set. That is why Parliament must both be conscious of the progress made by Romania towards accession – which, I believe, has acted as a catalyst for many changes and reforms – and also show itself to be demanding and vigilant and monitor the practical implementation of these reforms.

In addition, my report is conscious of the problems faced by Romania, particularly in the field of justice and home affairs regarding the transparency of the legal system, the fight against corruption, organised crime, border control, administrative capacity, recognition or protection of the Hungarian minority – to which I shall return – and also in the environmental sphere and in terms of the implementation of legislation. And we are aware that there is a whole series of requirements and subjects on which the Romanian Government needs to focus.

I myself would add that we still have the option of turning to the safeguard clauses. The safeguard clause is not just a gadget. It is a specific and concrete provision and a guarantee of the seriousness of the accession process; even so, it must not be seen as a threat or a punishment, but as a mechanism intended to give Bulgaria and Romania the time they need to prepare for integration in the internal market and to ensure that accession takes place under the best possible conditions both for the existing Member States and for the new ones.

That is the spirit of my report, a spirit, moreover, that closely mirrors that of Mr Van Orden’s report, and I think that, tomorrow, Parliament will be able to demonstrate its desire to take one more step towards accession on 1 January 2007.

I would now like to say a few words on the amendments discussed and prepared in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. There, too, we are very close to consensus and it is true that the report was also adopted by a large majority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. However, I believe that three or four delicate issues remain that will have to be discussed tomorrow, and I would like to express my feelings in that regard; that is the role of the rapporteur.

First of all, there is the issue of whether to link the cases of Romania and Bulgaria. Although they are, of course, linked in practice, they still need to be judged on their own merits. I myself cosigned an amendment tabled by Mr Lagendijk on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, adding to paragraph 3 a specific mention of the fight against corruption and of the transparency of the legal system, applicable both to Mr Van Orden’s report and to mine.

A second very delicate and very important issue relates to adoption. It is the subject of an amendment by Baroness Nicholson, whose commitment to the law as adopted in Romania we all know. To my mind, we perhaps need to put more emphasis on the interests of the child and on the legal framework of the UN, in addition to Romanian law, in resolving contentious issues arising from the moratorium – and, as rapporteur, I am aware of a number of such issues. Several amendments have been proposed by Mr Wiersma and Mr Lagendijk. I hope that we will adopt one or other of these amendments or reach a compromise between them.

Then there is the issue of minorities. In my report, I proposed the idea of self-governance. It was apparent from the discussions in the Committee on Foreign Affairs that many took the view that, while respect for minorities was vital, we should not be giving the Romanian Government orders regarding the method, the procedure or the practical form that this increased autonomy should take. We must avoid meddling and try not to provoke conflicts through clumsy phrasing. On this subject, too, a number of wordings have been proposed by Mr Wiersma, once again, or by Baroness Nicholson. Be it greater decentralisation or cultural autonomy, I hope that, here too, Parliament will be able to affirm the rights of minorities, particularly of the Hungarian minority, whilst remaining flexible.

Finally, we reached a consensus last week that this report should avoid mentioning the rumours regarding the secret activities of the CIA. I still think that this progress report is not the place to express our very real concerns on this subject; it must deal with the accession and only with the accession.

For my part, I would like to thank all those who have worked on these accessions for the support they have given to this report. I am delighted at how it has been improved by their judicious additions. I think that we can do even more during the vote tomorrow morning and I hope that we will take another step towards the accession of Romania on 1 January 2007.

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I am glad to address the House again as regards the preparations of Bulgaria and Romania for accession to the Union.

Much has happened in the past year. Negotiations were completed at the end of 2004, and Parliament gave its assent to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, after which the accession treaty was signed in April. Currently, the treaty is being ratified in the Member States. Our focus, in the Commission and, I trust, in the other institutions, such as Parliament, is now firmly on encouraging and supporting Bulgaria and Romania to successfully complete all necessary preparations for accession. Neither country should spare any effort or time in completing the challenging work still to be done on the domestic front.

I welcome the active part played by the European Parliament and its Committee on Foreign Affairs and the reports prepared by Mr Moscovici and Mr Van Orden, which highlight the strong and weak points relating to the progress of both countries to date.

As you have seen from the Commission’s comprehensive monitoring reports, which I presented to you on 25 October, our assessment is broadly the same: both Bulgaria and Romania meet the political criteria. At the same time, they need to make further efforts, in particular to strengthen the rule of law, to improve public administration and the justice system, to fight corruption and to protect vulnerable groups effectively. Structural economic reforms need to be continued in both countries for them to meet the economic criteria for membership fully.

As regards the EU acquis, both Bulgaria and Romania have continued to make progress in adopting and implementing EU legislation. They have reached a considerable degree of alignment 13 months before their envisaged accession on 1 January 2007. Nevertheless, in some areas there are still serious shortcomings in preparations and, in general, more attention needs to be paid to effective implementation and enforcement of the legislation.

So, it is far from plain sailing for the moment. Bulgaria and Romania still have a lot more to do and it is important that we, together – Parliament, the Member States and the Commission – keep reminding both countries to stay focused on the significant internal work still to be done. On 7 November, I sent a letter to both Foreign Ministers Kalfin and Ungureanu, in which I urged Bulgaria and Romania to take immediate and decisive action to address the gaps and shortcomings in their preparations.

As regards the remaining issues in Bulgaria and Romania’s preparations, the Commission will continue both to monitor and support them intensively up to accession. I welcome Parliament’s help and efforts in this regard.

Our next rendezvous on this topic will be to discuss a report focusing on the actions taken by Bulgaria and Romania to address the main remaining shortcomings that were identified in October’s comprehensive monitoring report. The Commission intends to present this report to Parliament and to the Council in May 2006. At that moment, the Commission may recommend that the Council postpone accession until 1 January 2008, if there is a serious risk of either country being manifestly unprepared to meet the requirements of membership by January 2007 in a number of important areas.

As President Barroso promised earlier this year, and in the spirit of our discussions in April to create an extended assent procedure, the Commission will use its regular dialogue with the European Parliament and will listen to Parliament’s views on the possible use of the postponement clause. The Commission would seriously consider these views before issuing any recommendation to associate fully the European Parliament in any possible decision to postpone accession. I am ready to meet the Foreign Affairs Committee in the course of the spring, for instance in April, to exchange views on the situation then in Bulgaria and Romania.

Let me conclude by thanking the European Parliament for its constructive and balanced approach towards Bulgaria and Romania’s accession to the European Union. This has again been illustrated in the very sound, solid reports from Mr Moscovici and Mr Van Orden. The Commission always welcomes the strong commitment of Parliament in the accession process and its close follow-up of developments in Bulgaria and Romania. I trust that together we will complete the fifth enlargement round and make a success of it.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, let me begin by paying generous tribute to the work of both Mr Van Orden and Mr Moscovici for their work on these dossiers as rapporteurs and also by saying what a particular pleasure it is to follow Commissioner Rehn, who has been a dedicated and effective advocate of taking forward the work both for Bulgaria and Romania’s accession.

I warmly welcome this debate today, which is held at an important juncture in Bulgaria and Romania’s accession processes. From previous exchanges with honourable Members, I know that this Parliament maintains a close and detailed interest in both countries’ European Union preparations and wider enlargement issues. I look forward to a stimulating and thought-provoking discussion this afternoon.

The December 2004 European Council concluded that both Bulgaria and Romania will be able to assume all the obligations of membership from January 2007, provided they both continue with efforts to implement the necessary reforms and commitments undertaken in the acquis. The June 2005 European Council reiterated these conclusions and welcomed the signing of Bulgaria and Romania’s accession Treaty in Luxembourg on 25 April. As the Council noted, this marked a further important step towards accession, and it was a step firmly supported by this Parliament when it voted to approve the signing of the Treaty.

It is not difficult to see why the European Parliament and the Council have supported Romania and Bulgaria’s European Union aspirations. The prospect of EU membership has acted as a major lever for reform already. Since they started on the path to EU membership, both Bulgaria and Romania have implemented far-reaching political and economic changes. Living conditions and economic opportunities have improved. In the space of only 16 years, two dictatorships have been supplanted, I am glad to say, with democracies. These are substantial achievements by any measure and we should credit those who have worked so hard to bring them forward.

The stage is now set for full membership, something that will bring us much closer to healing the artificial division of Europe after the Second World War. It will contribute to a more stable, secure and stronger Union.

Neither Bulgaria nor Romania’s accession processes are yet complete. Indeed, as Commissioner Rehn has emphasised and emphasised previously in July, it is crucial to the success of enlargement that any new country joining the Union is well prepared to cope with the obligations of membership. As the Commissioner made very clear in his public statement in October, the jury is still out on when Bulgaria and Romania will join.

It is in all of our interests that Bulgaria and Romania are ready to join the European Union on 1 January 2007, as has already been suggested in the course of our debate. This goal is achievable as long as both countries step up the pace of reform in the short period of time left between now and that critical date. The comprehensive monitoring reports identify clear areas where both countries must now focus their efforts.

The report on Bulgaria shows that it meets the political criteria for membership, but further work is still needed to address remaining shortcomings. These include taking decisive action to reform the justice system and substantially stepping up the fight against organised crime and corruption, including at a high level. Pursuing reforms of the public administration system should also be a priority. In the area of human rights and the protection of minorities, more efforts are needed to prevent the trafficking in human beings, a subject on which this Parliament has repeatedly made clear its views, as well as to improve child welfare and the situation of the mentally disabled and to further the integration of the Roma minority generally.

The Commission also assesses that Bulgaria should be in a position to comply with the economic criteria of accession, provided it continues on its current reform path and deals with the current account deficit. To this end, it should seek to maintain a prudent fiscal policy, improve the business environment and pursue accelerated labour market reforms.

On the adoption and implementation of the acquis, the report notes that Bulgaria has made further progress in particular on competition rules and culture and audiovisual policy. However, developments in a number of other areas have been frankly insufficient. Generally, Bulgaria needs to step up its efforts to complete preparations and to develop a sufficient administrative and judicial capacity to implement and enforce our Union’s legal order in full. I mentioned some particularly pressing implementation gaps earlier, such as the need to tackle corruption and organised crime effectively. Other concerns relate to the implementation of the European Union’s external border requirements and procedures, police cooperation and the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights in order to fight piracy and the broader issue of counterfeiting. The weak enforcement of rules on motor vehicle insurance also remains an issue of serious concern, as are shortcomings in the areas of agriculture, animal welfare, veterinary public health and food safety.

Turning to Romania, the Commission assesses that she meets the conditions for membership, but further work is still needed to address remaining shortcomings. Romania needs to take decisive action to reform the justice system and substantially step up the fight against corruption, including at a high level. It should also pursue reforms of the public administration system and further efforts are needed to improve the situation of the disabled and mentally ill, a topic which I know is close to this Parliament’s heart.

I would agree with the Commission’s assessment that Romania should be in a position to comply with economic criteria by accession, provided it continues and intensifies its efforts, in particular by paying attention to its external balance, public sector wage policy and the government’s revenue base. Romania has made further progress in adapting and implementing the acquis, in particular on areas concerning the free movement of persons, telecommunications and consumer protection.

However, shortcomings remain in other areas. Generally, as with Bulgaria, Romania needs to step up its efforts to complete preparations and to develop a sufficient administrative and judicial capacity to implement and enforce the European Union’s legal order in full. It too needs to tackle corruption, including high-level corruption. As with Bulgaria, Romania must address concerns over the implementation of the European Union’s external border requirements and procedures, and concerns over the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights. A number of grave shortcomings that need to be swiftly and decisively addressed also relate to the area of agriculture and food safety and to the protection of the environment.

The first months of next year will be crucial periods in Romania’s accession process. Romania has made substantial progress to reach this stage. I clearly acknowledge that before this Parliament today. However, it must now renew its efforts to tackle those remaining concerns.

Bulgaria must also in the first months of the year focus all its efforts on addressing its remaining shortcomings. The Commission’s report provides an effective roadmap, identifying clearly the key weaknesses, and should help guide Bulgaria’s approach. Bulgaria too has made substantial process to reach this stage. The finishing-line is now in sight and Bulgaria will cross it, as long as it increases its efforts and implements those outstanding reforms. This will require hard work, but it will be well worth it.

The European Union will continue to provide any assistance and support to both Bulgaria and Romania in their endeavours to make that final push towards accession. I hope that accession in 2007 will be achieved by both Romania and Bulgaria. That accession will bring real benefits to both countries and – I would argue – clearly to the European Union as a whole. As my Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said to this Parliament in June, enlargement is an historic opportunity to build a greater and more powerful Union. I hope that this time next year both Romania and Bulgaria will be only a fortnight away from becoming full members of our European Union.

(Applause)

  Francisco José Millán Mon, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, just a month and a half ago we talked in this Chamber about Romania’s accession to the European Union. Then it was to discuss the report presented by the Commissioner, Mr Rehn. We are doing so again today in order to discuss the report which this Parliament will approve tomorrow and which I hope will receive full support.

There is a fundamental coincidence between the two reports. Much significant progress has been made in Romania, but efforts are still needed in several areas, which we are all aware of and which have been mentioned today. The two reports also coincide on one fundamental point: it is very important that progress be made in the field of justice and home affairs, particularly with regard to the implementation of the reform in the justice system, better border controls and the fight against corruption, the latter being an essential issue and one on which Parliament wants to see results.

There is another significant coincidence between the Commission’s report and the Moscovici report: these are decisive times. As the Commissioner has said, in the spring the Commission will produce a report on Romania’s degree of preparedness and give its opinion on the possible creation of a mechanism that could delay effective accession by one year. This Parliament will then also issue its opinion on this issue, as laid down in the text that we will vote on tomorrow. We want to be closely involved in this issue.

The results in the field of justice and home affairs and the fight against corruption will be very important in this spring’s assessment. The Romanian Government must therefore carry on making the greatest possible effort in this and other areas. The example of the successes achieved in the field of competition policy, which was previously an issue of immense concern, must serve to stimulate the work still to be done.

Mr President, it is true that the accessions of Romania and Bulgaria should not fall victim to the new climate of crisis and fatigue amongst the citizens demonstrated by the failures relating to the Constitutional Treaty. But we must be realistic; that climate exists and it is difficult for it not to affect the Members of this Parliament, who are close to the citizens and who will be watching the degree of preparation of the two countries very closely.

In summary, Romania has an historic date with the European Union on 1 January 2007. As the report states, Parliament is reiterating its desire for this to take place, but it also stresses that achieving that objective depends, firstly, on the Romanian authorities fulfilling their commitments. We support and applaud the efforts they are making to get there on time and to achieve their goal, but that is a job for the Romanian authorities.

  Alexandra Dobolyi, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (HU) I would like to welcome the work of both rapporteurs. One of my reasons for doing so is that as a Hungarian MEP I have been following the efforts of these two countries and the assessments of Parliament and Commission day by day since I joined Parliament. With a few amendments, I am happy to say that both reports are balanced and accurately reflect the current situation of the two countries. I do not wish to repeat the statements of those who spoke before me nor the criticism given by the Council and the Commission, because, as I already mentioned in October, during the debate following the country report of the Commission, the observers from the two countries are here in order to be able to provide a first-hand report to their decision makers both on deficiencies and on the desirable decisions proposed by Parliament. In the course of the debate this morning, during the preparation of the summit that will take place this weekend, it became unequivocally clear that all Groups of Parliament emphasised the importance of solidarity throughout the European Union, because this is the only way we can maintain our competitiveness. As the two rapporteurs have also mentioned, the importance of solidarity must be emphasised even more in the case of the two countries under discussion.

As a Hungarian I cannot avoid mentioning the situation of Hungarians living in Romania. I expect the Romanian Government to adopt the Minority Act specified in the Coalition Agreement as soon as possible, as promised. I know that all those present in the House are already aware of this, but I still have to emphasise the importance of cultural autonomy, which forms the basis of the above-mentioned law. This is the law that, when adopted and observed, will be able to ensure the harmonious coexistence of the minority and majority living in Romania in the long term.

  Alexander Lambsdorff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, the Liberal Group is appreciative of the progress that Bulgaria and Romania have made in their efforts to draw closer to the European Union. We shall continue to support both countries as they progress along this road, while also observing very closely the manner in which they discharge their responsibilities as candidates. As my group has repeatedly emphasised, both countries must be judged on the basis of their own performance and independently of one another.

The Commission will be producing its next progress report on the two countries early next year, and, as Mr Millán Mon has remarked, it will be doing so in a changed climate, one brought about by the constitutional crisis in which the EU finds itself. The debate on this will be held in mid-2006.

That makes all the more important the two countries’ efforts, now that they are on the final straight, to become as efficient as possible and to perform as well as possible, for those are the sort of Member States that the European Union needs. There is also the issue to the EU’s capacity to absorb new members and, associated with it, that of the future of enlargement policy. It is worthy of note that the debate in the Council on Macedonia is a symptom of this changed climate.

Let me just say a few things with specific reference to Bulgaria. Here we have a balanced document from Mr Van Orden, which gives the Bulgarian Government credit for its efforts and, while highlighting the country’s economic dynamism and average 4% growth rates, spells out in clear terms where Bulgaria still needs to make progress. One important aspect of the text from the Committee on Foreign Affairs is that it calls on high-ranking civil servants in Bulgaria to make public their renunciation of every kind of corruption and to support the enactment of regulations to disclose their incomes and financial arrangements. This would make for greater transparency and enhance trust in them.

The Liberal Group would like to see Romania and Bulgaria become Member States of the EU in 2007. I might add that I believe that we should be conducting this debate in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg.

  Milan Horáček, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while acknowledging the efforts made by both these countries, we are concerned by some of the points of criticism made in the Commission’s report. We tabled amendments to the Van Orden report relating to the environment and human rights, but they were, unfortunately, rejected. Turning to the deadline for the decommissioning of the nuclear power plant at Kozloduj, I would like to ask Commissioner Rehn what the Commission thinks about paragraph 29, which allows for greater flexibility with regard to the closing down of Blocks 3 and 4. To what alternative sources of energy is it giving consideration? This House has been involved in the deliberations on the use of the safeguard clauses; we will take a critical view of accession and will base our decision on the extent to which reforms have been implemented in the justice system, in the fight against corruption, in the protection of children and in the integration of the Roma.

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. (NL) Mr President, although Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accessions have already been the subject of a vote, the disappointing situation in those countries can cause delays of one year. My group has tabled a number of amendments on this score, including Amendment 7, about the continued extortion engaged in by the police and customs to the detriment of EU citizens of Turkish origin travelling through Bulgaria.

The developments within the European Union itself are also hampering further enlargement, though. France is threatening to veto negotiations with Macedonia, a country cooperating closely with Croatia in the hope of joining simultaneously with it. The possible approval of ex-Commissioner Bolkenstein’s services directive means that the economic discrepancies between the Member States will become a competitive factor. This causes public opinion in the current Member States to turn itself against further enlargements.

The people in the Netherlands and France who voted against the proposed Constitution are opposed to the neoliberal policy that destroys their welfare provisions and takes away their social security. There are now forces both in and outside of governments who wrongly interpret this as an aversion to payments from regional funds to countries with a low standard of living. If we want further enlargement, we will need to ensure that those problems are resolved in good time.

  Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, the Polish people are particularly sympathetic to the EU ambitions of Bulgaria and Romania, and they have always supported these countries in their efforts towards European integration. This is not only because of our geographical proximity, but also because we have shared a difficult history over recent decades. We continue to follow the progress of political and economic reforms in both countries very closely, and with every hope that they will be successful.

I should like to make it known, however, that I have grave doubts about whether it will be possible to fulfil both countries’ hopes of joining the European Union. The British Presidency’s proposal for the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective makes no provision for the costs of the new enlargement. Contrary to the statements by its politicians, the EU will not be able to make good on its earlier commitments. What this also means is that there will be nowhere near enough EU funding available to create a level playing field for Bulgaria and Romania in development terms, both before and after they join the EU. This can be taken as yet more proof that the EU principle of solidarity has been a dead letter for many years.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of the new Italian Socialist Party.

I have already made my support for Romania’s accession clear on more than one occasion. I am sad to see, however, that no progress has yet been made on the issue of the international adoptions that were pending at the time of the 2001 moratorium, despite Parliament’s repeated recommendations and the statements of willingness from the government in Bucharest. On 14 January 2005, to be specific, the Romanian Prime Minister assured the Italian press that all pending cases of international adoption would be analysed one by one by a committee of international experts. To date, however, as far as I know, neither the families involved nor the European Union itself have been informed about the working party’s procedures or the conclusions it has reached.

When I asked the European Commission, it was unable in fact to offer me any clarification, and I was also disappointed with the replies I received from Commissioner Rehn to my enquiries. He defended the current Romanian law, which nobody is questioning, without giving any undertaking to resolve the cases that were pending prior to the entry into force of that law, as expressly requested by Parliament.

I myself have also addressed the Romanian Government through its ambassador in Brussels, but it has not given me any useful information or cooperation either. I have today written a letter to the observers here, informing them of this, in the hope that they will take my appeal into serious consideration. Europe has always been willing to help the candidate countries and human rights cases throughout the world, but perhaps for once it deserves greater recognition, when what is in fact quite a simple request is denied like this.

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, Romania and Bulgaria are among the twelve countries to which we extended an invitation after the Wall and the barbed wire were brought down. Whatever other considerations we may now have in mind, we must not forget that they are among that number, and that it is for that reason that they form part of a package.

The Treaty has been concluded, but the treaties with these countries are equipped with safeguard clauses. That is what makes it of the utmost importance that we should look to see how the timetable is adhered to, and how the Commission’s report is presented early next year. It is on the basis of this report’s assessment and of our own conclusions that we will then have to take a decisions as to whether these safeguard clauses, which provide for a delay of one year, should actually be applied, and whether, as can be the case, they should apply to both countries, to neither of them, or to one of them. Nothing has been decided, but we should be clear in our own minds about the need for the public not to get the impression that there is anything automatic about it, in other words, that if you start negotiations, you get in automatically on the date you want. Hence the need for implementation in the areas mentioned by the Commissioner in his last report and in his letter – dated 9 November, I believe – to the governments of the two countries, and to which the President-in-Office made reference here today, namely corruption, organised crime, border security, food safety within the European single market, consequences for the internal market itself, the rule of law and the development of administration and the justice system. The Commission, and Mr Moscovici and Mr Van Orden, with the reports they have presented today, deserve our gratitude for pointing out that this is not just about setting these things down in the form of laws. What we need to do now is to exert the necessary pressure and provide the necessary support in order that these countries can meet the conditions, but accession is conditional upon their doing so, and whether or not they make the necessary progress is entirely in their own hands.

  Jan Marinus Wiersma (PSE). (NL) Mr President, our group, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, has always been an unfailing advocate of the European Union’s enlargement by countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Bulgaria’s and Romania’s accession will complete the fifth enlargement round, finally bringing to an end the division in Europe that lasted for decades.

Just like the accession of ten new Member States last year, we want Bulgaria’s and Romania’s accession to be a success, not only for the people of those countries, but also for the European Union. My group believes that both countries are capable of taking, and implementing, all the necessary measures before the final accession.

The Commission’s progress reports give an indication of what still needs to happen. The areas of concern and criticism are, above all, a guidebook for those countries’ governments and parliaments to take the necessary measures in the time that is left.

We assume that both countries will make every effort and take action in order to achieve the objectives for EU membership in January 2007. They need to give more attention to the fight against corruption and organised crime, as well as to the reinforcement of the judiciary. In addition, the European Parliament, in its reports, highlights the importance of the position of the Roma in both countries.

In April of last year, we gave our formal blessing to Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession. At that time, 20 months before the planned date of accession, we did this in the full knowledge that considerable progress needed to be made in important areas in both countries. The inclusion of a safeguard clause which makes it possible to move the date of accession back one year was important in this respect, as well as the pledge by the Commission and Council to involve Parliament fully in the decision as to whether this safeguard clause should apply or not.

We think there is every reason to be moderately optimistic that both countries will be able to meet the prescribed requirements by the next assessment. We will state our opinion on this in the spring of 2006.

One last point is, of course, our own readiness to enlarge. Tomorrow and the day after, the EU’s post-2006 multi-annual budget will be discussed in the European Council, something that has already been discussed at length this morning. I would like to stress once again that we share the responsibility of making Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accessions successful, and I would therefore urge the Heads of Government to consider this enlargement as one of their guiding principles in their decision-making, particularly in both debates tomorrow.

  Luciana Sbarbati (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, two months after the last Commission and Council report on Romania’s level of preparation for accession to the European Union, we are once again examining the progress made.

We can agree on the fact that progress has been made, but it is undeniable that other conditions laid down in the accession treaty also have to be met, if accession is to be achieved in January 2007. As the Moscovici report shows, today these areas still require a great deal of work.

That is the case, for instance, with freedom of expression, justice, the fight against corruption, antidiscrimination measures, child protection and the protection of people with mental health problems, the excessive use of force by the police authorities, industrial and domestic waste management, food safety and environmental protection, as well as the implementation of legislation on the return of properties. That is not to mention – and here I absolutely underline what a fellow Member has already said – the international adoptions problem, to which no solution has been found even under the new law. This law does not apply retroactively, but it has effectively blocked even those families who had already started adoption proceedings when the moratorium came into force.

Mr President, this is a question of human rights. Denying a child a family, after the child has already hugged and come to know and love his or her potential adoptive parents, can in no way be justified; the child’s interests must remain paramount in all circumstances.

For that reason we called for an analysis of all the issues and all the situations by the committee that has been set up. Nevertheless, we have not received any response to date.

We also tabled an amendment in committee with Mr Podestà, which was subsequently taken up. Further amendments have been tabled today by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. As the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe we shall support them, because we want the situation to be duly acknowledged by the Romanian authorities and a solution to be found to it.

I therefore believe that the observers, who have been here in Parliament since 26 September, can very usefully help their government to fulfil the commitments it has made, including by exchanging experiences with colleagues from other countries.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the Verts/ALE Group has tabled an amendment to paragraph 19 of the Bulgaria report. Although the rapporteur welcomes practical measures taken to improve integration, key reforms to combat discrimination are still at the early stages. Our amendment stresses that fact.

In other fields the situation is worsening. The trafficking of children has doubled. The good news is that 86 Bulgarian institutions recently started legal proceedings against Mr Siderov, leader of the neo-Nazi party Ataka. He will be brought to court for his hate speeches against Roma, Jews and Turks. This initiative deserves our support.

However, if MEPs are not cautious in expressing themselves, they run the risk of being exploited by parties like Ataka. Mr Van Orden’s frequent use of the word ‘adapt’ made the rapporteur popular in Ataka circles. I am going to show you the Ataka newspaper with a picture of Mr Van Orden and an article inside. I think this is a sad day for Parliament.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL).  – (CS) As of 1 January 2007, Bulgaria and Romania will be EU Member States. Some of the conditions laid down in the Treaty of Accession work to the advantage of these countries, whereas others are nothing short of discriminatory from the point of view of the first pillar. After all, those of us from the new Member States have ample first-hand experience of such discrimination, an example of which is the establishment of the free movement of persons as an ideal from which the accession arrangements are far removed.

I am somewhat alarmed by the US administration’s efforts to establish or take control of military bases in the Balkans, and by the relentless pressure to exempt US citizens from the jurisdiction of the Hague-based International Criminal Court. The end result of negotiations on this matter should in fact be that the common interests of the EU Member States, including the new Member States, are given clear priority. The reports pass over this issue. Conversely, I believe that it is high time that negotiations were opened on energy security. It is particularly important that such security be guaranteed in terms of electricity supply to the region that may be affected by the decommissioning of several blocks of the Kozloduj power plant, as mentioned by Mr Horáček.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would call on you once again to help ensure that the new Member States’ accession to the European Union proceeds smoothly. We should not allow these countries to endure continued hardship after 1 January 2007, confronted as they are by massive problems, caused inter alia by the pressure to privatise that has been exerted unscrupulously by external influences. We should not forget that we are setting a precedent for negotiations with other Balkan states, and they should receive an appropriate welcome into the EU.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM). (NL) Mr President, the Bulgarian customs officers still have a bad reputation for fleecing travellers. In fact, travellers have now started to anticipate the officers’ behaviour, and so it is that, according to an official report by the Dutch Government published just one and a half weeks ago, many people crossing the Bulgarian border have a small amount of money tucked away in their passports that is intended for the Bulgarian customs officers. According to one person in the know, it would certainly help if the Bulgarian media were to film the corrupt practices that go on at the border. This may well be a piece of advice that the Commissioner will want to pass on to his Bulgarian opposite number.

The fact is that the Romanian authorities set just as much store by the fight against corruption. What the Netherlands does regard as worrying, though, is the area of conflict that appears to exist between the wish to give the fight against corruption a public airing, both in terms of the EU and the population, and the detachment that simply needs to be displayed in court cases. Does the Commissioner share this conclusion on the part of a Member States and if so, what concrete action is he considering taking with regard to the Romanian authorities? After all, in this debate, we have discussed the fight against corruption and the reinforcement of the judiciary, although surely that creates an area of conflict? The Commissioner knows this very well, given his Romanian expertise. In short, the nascent Romanian judicial system should not be sacrificed on the altar of EU integration, for then we will miss the boat.

By way of conclusion, I should like to add a brief observation on the protection of intellectual property. This is something for which we usually call China to account. Mr Moscovici, in his report, is right to press Bucharest for this as well, for the Romanian shops are well-known for being stacked with counterfeit goods. In a word, Bucharest has been asked to take action.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I believe Romania remains on track for accession by 1 January 2007. However, the new government must continue reforming the judiciary, upholding media freedom, enabling property restitution, protecting minorities and children and fighting organised crime. Particular attention must also be paid to the reform of public administration and the fight against corruption, including delivery on the promise of indictments of high-level officials alleged to have committed serious offences.

The situation of disabled and mentally ill people is also of concern. Romania’s control of its borders and collection of customs dues – with the settlement of the Snake Island dispute in the Black Sea – is important, as is improving food hygiene, environmental pollution and intellectual property protection. However, Romania’s recent handling of the avian flu outbreak was excellent. Romania continues to comply with the criterion of being a functioning market economy, but there are still concerns on state aid and bankruptcy laws.

Lastly, I want to raise the tragic issue of international adoptions, which affects hopeful parents from the European Union, the United States and Israel. I urge the Romanian Government to consider concluding these adoptions, in particular the 1 100 pipeline cases of orphans and abandoned children for whom caring foreign families had registered adoption petitions prior to the January 2005 ban. That ban was largely brought about at the request of the European Union, eager to clean up a previously chaotic and sometimes corrupt system. The UN Convention on the Child does not forbid international adoption. It simply makes it the last permanent solution. The Romanian Government should seriously reconsider the heartless position it is currently maintaining.

  Robert Evans (PSE). – Mr President, I first visited Romania for a skiing trip during the Christmas/New Year period in 1989. The Romanian flags being waved then had holes where the symbol was cut out in the middle. Sixteen years on, we have Mr Moscovici’s report which shows quite amazing achievements and huge progress.

I speak now as one who has been a Member of the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee since 1994 and who has visited many times, seeing the significant advances, particularly in the fields of freedom of expression, justice, minorities and children. What we are talking about is reuniting the people of Europe. People who share a common culture, a common heritage, a common history and who have great linguistic links. Romania is European in every sense; its mere name gives that away. I look forward to the day when Romanian colleagues are in this Chamber as elected Members of this European Parliament.

(Applause)

  Paavo Väyrynen (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the preparations of both Bulgaria and Romania for EU membership seem to be proceeding as expected. Both countries have encountered problems, which can nevertheless be overcome. It needs to be stressed that the accession of either country must be assessed on the basis of its own achievements. Hopefully both countries can join the Union at the start of 2007.

The Union is both politically and institutionally prepared to accept Bulgaria and Romania as its members. With regard to future enlargement, however, the situation is unclear. This is also evident from the fact that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has not reached consensus on the report on enlargement strategy.

Future enlargement and the reworking of the Treaties should be examined together. Many are endeavouring to restrict future enlargement and believe that a Constitution which has been rejected in a national referendum should be put swiftly into effect. This strategy is associated with debates on the Union’s ability to accept more members and alternatives to full membership. This is not a realistic path to follow: it will lead to a dead end.

The future has to be built on two fundamental facts. Firstly, it is obvious that the Union will continue to expand vigorously, and, secondly, the Constitution has been rejected once and for all. It would therefore be wise to start drafting a new Treaty more suited to an expanding Union and one that will have the approval of the citizens of the Member States. The expanding Union may not be very close-knit, so we need more arrangements for closer cooperation. As it expands, the Union thus needs to be internally differentiated.

  Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE). (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today, I should like to counsel meticulousness and appeal to you all to take our own criteria and procedures seriously.

This remark is addressed particularly to Members who already know that Romania will not make it next year. They thought, or think, that Europe has, in the past, taken hasty decisions where enlargements are concerned and now believe that we should be somewhat stricter and that whatever Romania does, it will never be good enough.

It is also addressed to those Members who already know that Romania will succeed anyway, irrespective of the fact whether it will meet the conditions prescribed. There is every reason for Parliament to remain critical to the last moment, particularly in the areas that are so sensitive and difficult as the reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption. These form the biggest problems not only in Romania, but in all candidate countries.

The questions that were asked six months ago are still crucial: is it, with the help of its very determined Justice Minister, managing to carry out the reform of the judiciary? Will new people with new insights fill important positions? Is it really possible to fight corruption at the highest level? Those are questions to which we do not have to find the answers right now. What matters now is for us to be focused, clear and unambiguous, to make it clear what we think should happen in Romania, and Judgment Day is set to fall in May 2006.

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM). – Mr President, these reports state the wish of the majority in this Parliament to see Bulgaria and Romania join the European Union by 1 January 2007. However, these reports contain many instances detailing their total unsuitability to join according to the EU’s own membership criteria.

These reports highlight their levels of corruption, the proliferation of organised crime, and the need for the reform of their legal and economic systems among many other things. It is unlikely that these countries will be able to transform themselves into the paragons of virtue they are supposed to be before they can join in one year’s time.

But we all know that sadly it does not matter what state they are in. It does not matter what their levels of corruption and organised crime are. They are going to be welcomed in anyway. Their membership is part of the grand plan for the creation of a United States of Europe, and all other factors are subordinate to that ambition.

  Kinga Gál (PPE-DE). – (HU) In spite of all the accusations voiced in the Romanian press and in many press briefings, I am not against the accession of Romania, I am not speaking out against the interests of Romania. But – with deep respect for the population of Romania – I know that accession must be successful for each Romanian citizen. This is their only chance to avoid missing the vitally important modernisation. And the European Union constitutes a chance today, perhaps the very last chance for the population of Romania. However, I believe that this chance must also be provided to the Hungarian community in Romania, who have already had their fair share of political window-dressing, but what they actually see is that only a few of the essential issues have been solved.

Please allow me to give an example. When the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament votes that the situation of this community should be settled on the basis of European principles such as self-governance and subsidiarity, the Romanian Prime Minister asks the Liberal Group in Brussels to remove the principle of self-governance from the text and replace it with ‘cultural autonomy’. In the meantime, in the background, the two large government coalition parties – Liberal and Democratic – agreed in Bucharest on Monday to remove the essence of cultural autonomy from the draft Minority Act, robbing the minority community of all forms of self-governance.

They would remove from the rather unstable draft Minority Act the very essence for which it is being created, allowing no opportunity for dialogue. This constitutes further evidence of the Romanian political window-dressing. They say one thing to Europe, and do something else at home. Could it be that they use the same political window-dressing in other areas, as well? Regarding the issues of the Roma people, environmental protection, property restitution, corruption? Please support me in ensuring that we adhere to our basic European principles, to our April resolution – and let us not amend paragraph 26 of the Moscovici report. The report that we had voted for is good as it is, and Mr Moscovici deserves to be commended for it. If we do not demand that these basic principles be implemented, no one else will do it in our place.

  Panagiotis Beglitis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, it is a fact that Romania and Bulgaria have made significant progress in incorporating and applying the acquis communautaire, thanks to consistent support in the enlargement strategy on the part of the European Union.

We welcome all these changes and reforms in the political, economic and social sectors. Today both countries, Bulgaria and Romania, are at a critical stage and there are some real serious deficits. The question of environmental protection, the question of external border controls, the question of the fight against organised crime, the safety of nuclear energy and food safety are questions which also worry and interest European citizens.

At a time when there is a crisis as regards the legitimacy of the enlargement strategy, the European Union must, for its part, remain constant in its decisions on the two countries, decisions which must not allow discounts in principle. That would be a mistake for both countries and for the European Union.

For its part, the European Commission must help within the framework of the pre-accession strategy and within the framework of the programmes which exist for the transfer of Community know-how.

Finally, I should like to comment on two individual demands which particularly concern and worry European citizens: the first is the question of Bulgaria's obligation to respect the provisions and arrangements of the accession act on the safety of the Kozloduy nuclear power station and the second, for Romania, is the major humanitarian problem which has been generated with child adoption. I believe and trust that the Romanian authorities, with respect for international law and with respect for Romanian law, will resolve this humanitarian problem, which is worrying adoptive parents in Europe.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, it is good that the ground rules for the accession process should be clear and, in my view, they are indeed so. There is no doubt whatsoever that both Romania and Bulgaria understand what is required of them. During my visits to these two countries and my conversations with the people there, I have seen this for myself. Everyone in Romania and Bulgaria knows that we are concerned about the remaining areas in which improvements are required. Everyone knows perfectly well that we are watching them and monitoring every stage of development. However, no one with whom I have spoken, from government representatives to people on the café terraces, are as strongly convinced that we really want to see them join as early as 2007, despite our saying that we do and despite our saying so in our resolutions and reports. Why is this the case?

Obviously, we are sending extremely clear signals about the negative things – problems, difficulties and requirements – but less clear signals of encouragement and appreciation and, above all, of the sincerity with which we shall welcome them. What I mean is that it is good that we should carefully monitor the reforms that are implemented and the ways in which both Romania and Bulgaria fulfil the requirements for membership. Given the repeated references in this Chamber to protection clauses, postponement of the accession, absorption ability and the debate on the EU’s external borders, I am afraid that the signal we are sending not only to Romania and Bulgaria but to the whole region is that Europe has been transformed into a colder place that is more closed in on itself.

That is not the Europe I know. It is not the Europe I fight and work for and defend. I believe that all the reforms recently implemented by Romania and Bulgaria are testament to these countries’ efforts and to the fact that they give high priority to their membership. Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession to the EU will be a strong catalyst and a factor that will increase security throughout the region. I am convinced that, with our help, these countries can successfully accede to EU membership no later than in January 2007. I am also convinced that this is not possible without our help and support and without a positive perspective.

  Libor Rouček (PSE).  – (CS) I too should like to take this opportunity to call on the Bulgarian and Romanian authorities to step up the pace of their work and to speed up their preparations for joining the European Union. Examples of areas where efforts need to be intensified include the functioning of the judiciary, the fight against corruption and the integration of minorities, including the Roma minority. A very accurate account of these weak points is given in the Van Orden and Moscovici reports. To my mind, compliance with these requirements and with the others that have already been mentioned today is of crucial importance, and there are two reasons why this is the case.

Firstly, these requirements must be met in order to make it possible for Bulgaria and Romania to become full members of the EU as of 1 January 2007. Secondly, and in my opinion equally importantly, they must be met so that both countries can continue to set a positive example to their neighbours, such as Macedonia or Serbia and Montenegro. Both Bulgaria and Romania played a very positive role during the 1990s when war was raging in the Balkans, and acted as a stabilising force. It is my firm belief that the two countries will continue to play such a role, and that they will set an example not only to their Balkan neighbours, but also to certain small-time politicians, most of whom hail from the old Member States, who are starting to lose heart and to cast doubt upon the very purpose of European enlargement.

  Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I too agree with everyone in this Chamber who has stressed that, only with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007 will the fifth enlargement be complete. It is important that we remember this.

Throughout the accession procedure, both Bulgaria and Romania have achieved a great many things. There are without doubt still a number of matters outstanding, but the fact that they have achieved this much illustrates the political will of both countries to honour the commitments which they made towards the European Union, so that they can become full and active members of the European family.

As far as Bulgaria is concerned, I have two comments to make: the first comment concerns the Kozloduy nuclear power station. I believe that Bulgaria should honour the commitment it made when it signed the Accession Treaty and close units 3 and 4. At the same time, however, I consider that Bulgaria needs help in filling the energy vacuum which will be created, help like that which is to be given to Slovakia, according to my sources, so that it can honour its commitments relating to nuclear energy.

My second comment concerns the strategic position of Bulgaria on the external borders of the European Union. I believe that it is very important, precisely because with Bulgaria we shall have new borders, for controls to be coordinated, in order to prevent and combat organised crime.

Finally, as far as Romania is concerned, I too believe that the very important question of adoptions must be addressed in its correct dimension.

  Camiel Eurlings (PPE-DE). (NL) Mr President, the enlargement has been of great benefit to the European Union, including its old countries, and we must turn away from the populists who claim otherwise. I am convinced that Romania and Bulgaria will also enrich the EU. Their accession will not only benefit them, but will also add something to the EU. When I say this, it does not mean that we must not be strict where the EU’s criteria and values are concerned.

The simple fact of the matter is that much remains to be done in that area. According to last month’s Transparency International list, Bulgaria is ranked Number 55 and Romania Number 85 on the list of corrupt countries, which puts them alongside such countries as Mongolia and the Dominican Republic. What is particularly cause for concern is the fact that corruption even pervades the highest echelons.

Another area for improvement is border control and all the related activities, as well as the rights of minorities.

Bulgaria and Romania have done a great deal, but much is yet to be done before the criteria are really met. This House was forced to decide really early on, 20 months prior to accession, but we will not take the actual decision on the question when those countries can join until we have received the last piece of information, namely in April, although it is more likely to be May, of next year. I think we should be fair in this, that we need to let the facts speak for themselves, that we need to ratchet up the pressure now and that Romania and Bulgaria should now pull out all the stops in order to make actual progress in the area of corruption.

It would be tremendously symbolic if we were to see representative senior officials and former political figures brought to court on account of their corruption. That would be a wonderful symbol. Our verdict will depend on this: fair but objective and also faithful to our values.

Knowing the Commissioner, I trust that he will also operate along those lines, that, if the outcome is good enough, the countries in question can join in 2007, but that, if there is a shortcoming, the Commission will suggest postponing their accession by one year.

It is good to maintain the criteria in order to retain the support for enlargement. It also benefits the EU’s credibility and, last but not least, it is a very good thing for the people of Romania and Bulgaria who deserve our level of freedom and democracy.

  Árpád Duka-Zólyomi (PPE-DE). – (HU) The government of Romania is systematically working on meeting the requirements raised by the European Union and the European Parliament. However, there are still a great number of issues to be tackled in numerous areas. The tabled motion for resolution addresses deficiencies critically but fairly. I would like to call attention to the importance of the following amendment proposals, accepted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The situation of the draft Minority Act included in the programme of the Romanian Government is uncertain. The delaying tactics of the Romanian governing parties is unacceptable, and this is why it is necessary to issue a strict warning to Bucharest. A further important issue is the provision of mother-tongue university education for ethnic minority citizens, particularly in view of the fact that the situation of the more than 1.5 million indigenous Hungarians, of the Hungarian community, is not satisfactory in this respect. I emphasise that the unquestionable means of protecting minorities and ensuring their legal certainty is the actual implementation of the principle of subsidiarity and self-government, including the establishment of certain types of autonomy.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us not amend paragraph 26! The draft report mentions property restitution, but the issue of church property restitution has not been settled yet. Romania needs reforms and many new laws in the area of environmental protection. Once more, I would like to point out critically the exploitation plan of the gold mine at Rosia Montana, which must be solved taking into account the opinion of the competent civil organisations and affected countries, such as Slovakia and Hungary. Finally, it is very important to express firmly the possibility of enforcing the safeguard clause.

Compliance with the requirements listed means the implementation of the Copenhagen criteria. Like all candidate states so far, Romania can only obtain the licence needed for accession on the basis of actual results.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am very glad to participate in this debate, mainly to give a voice to the many children, young adults with handicaps and those living in inappropriate state institutions in Romania, which I visited recently.

However, before I do that, let me just say a few words about the EU budget talks that are ongoing for 2007 onwards. The British Presidency proposal does not make adequate provision for the enlargement of Romania and Bulgaria and we can only hope that the talks will change that situation. Whatever emerges, there is a duty on the EU to continue to press for reform in Romania’s state residential institutions. This is detailed in the monitoring report of the Enlargement Commission.

It is no coincidence that practically the only area that has experienced substantial reforms is that of child protection, to some extent due to the interest taken in this by the European Parliament. The adult handicapped sector has plans for reform but there are no substantial initiatives as yet, again reflecting the recent interest we have taken in this in the EU.

As for the mental health sector, where some of the worst conditions can be found, there are no substantive plans for reform and this area has been largely ignored by the European Union. We need to address it.

I would like to mention, as some of my colleagues have, the issue of the ‘pipeline children’, the inter-country adoptions. I share the concerns of colleagues. We need to get clarification from the Romanian authorities about these children. They need to give us assurances that it is in the best interests of the children to stay in Romania and indeed we need to know that they are in appropriate homes as we speak.

I understand the anxieties of the adoptive parents, but I also appreciate the reasons behind the ban on inter-country adoptions. However, what is most important is that the needs of the children are placed above all else. In some cases, this may mean allowing the adoptions to proceed. Human rights lobbyists I have spoken to contend that much of the reforms in Romania are of the ‘smoke and mirrors’ variety and that the theory does not always translate into real progress on the ground.

I hope that is not the case and I applaud Romania where it has made improvements, but much remains to be done. Too many people still live in unacceptable conditions in Romania’s institutions. We represent their best hope.

  Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking in place of Mr Podestà, the Chairman of the Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee, and therefore my speech will deal particularly with the situation in that country.

We agree with the basic points illustrated in the Moscovici report. The considerable progress made by Romania is also clear from the progress report put forward by Commissioner Rehn in the last part-session. On 22 and 23 November this year, the EU-Romania joint delegation met to discuss this candidate country’s actual current stage of advancement. The meeting was also attended by Vice-President Frattini, Commissioner Rehn, the Romanian observers to the European Parliament and the Romanian Government representative.

Following all these reports, which bear witness to the efforts made by Romania, we reaffirm the need for that country to sustain its commitment in order to be able to join us on 1 January 2007. Notable and undeniable improvements have been achieved in the areas of freedom, communications, the media, education, and human rights for the country’s ethnic minorities, without forgetting the significant results achieved in the economic field.

The situation of the Romanian market today is no different from that in which Spain, Portugal, Greece and the 10 countries of the fifth enlargement round found themselves 12 months before their accession.

While acknowledging that there are still important areas for improvement, such as justice, the fight against high-level corruption and the return of confiscated properties to others, in early December the Romanian Government launched an action plan setting irrevocable deadlines in order to meet the conditions agreed with the European Union. Work had started on the monitoring systems and the reorganisation of the institutions responsible for those areas back in April 2005, and now they need to be given the time they require for their activities effectively to come on stream.

A serious problem that remains unresolved, however, is that of the children who have already made contact with their potential new families, because of the new legislation that prohibits international adoptions. In that respect, we shall maintain Amendment 38 to paragraph 14 of the Moscovici report, in the hope that the Romanian Government will adopt immediate decisions to resolve this issue.

In any case, I should like to give our Romanian and Bulgarian colleagues my best wishes and hope that from 1 January 2007 they can be sitting on a par with us here in Parliament.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, I welcome the informed and thought provoking-debate that has taken place this afternoon on this important issue for the European Union. The interventions we have heard have reinforced the importance of enlargement in my mind and underlined the benefits it brings to candidate countries and indeed the wider Member States.

As in our previous debate, honourable Members’ points and questions went to the heart of the issue and raised some interesting issues for us to consider about Romania and Bulgaria’s accession processes and the wider policy of enlargement.

Given the constraints of time, I shall limit my concluding remarks to a few of the points that were addressed directly by honourable Members.

Mr Tannock and Mr Belder mentioned the issue of corruption and, in particular, concern in relation to border guards and the security thereof. Both countries certainly face major challenges in tackling corruption, and Bulgaria, in particular, must step up the fight against organised crime. The new governments have demonstrated a real commitment to tackle these problems and we have seen some progress, but there is still a long way to go. It is right to acknowledge that before this House today.

In Romania examples of progress include: a new head of the anti-corruption department in the General Prosecutor’s office; 11 new senior prosecutors removed for ineffectiveness; and 22 cases of corruption by former and current senators and deputies now under way. In relation to the further work that Romania has undertaken, border police and customs have dismissed large numbers of senior border and customs officers at several posts for ineffectiveness and corruption. But let us be very clear: there is considerable and important progress that needs to be made on these important points.

Mr Beglitis and Mr Tannock also mentioned the issue international adoption, a point that was then touched upon by Ms McGuinness in a later contribution to the debate. Corruption in international adoption has been clearly a problem. Recent measures have been introduced to protect the interests of the child, as we have heard from a number of speakers, to improve domestic child protection and family facilities and to reduce the numbers of institutionalised children, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and European Union norms.

In relation to the specific question as to why the Romanian Government is blocking pre-arranged adoptions, for example to the United States, a number of the so-called pipeline cases, which have been mentioned in the course of contributions to this debate, relate to requests made during the period of the 2001 to 2004 moratorium on international adoption. The Romanian authorities set up a group of experts in June 2005, who are working through the files of the children concerned, to analyse each specific case and to look for solutions within the context of the legislation currently in force.

Ms McGuinness, Ms Sbarbati and Ms de Groen-Kouwenhoven also mentioned children in the wider sense and asked what is being done in relation to the treatment of children in both of these countries. We are certainly concerned about the plight of institutionalised children whose living conditions are generally inadequate in both of these countries. More work is needed to improve conditions, but we are encouraged by both governments’ recent actions. For example, in the case of Bulgaria, the government has established six regional offices of the State Agency for Child Protection since early 2005 to take forward improvements. It has started to implement a new action plan to close old state care homes.

In the case of Romania, the government is working hard to take children out of care homes and move them in with foster parents or relatives. It has closed almost all of the 85 large, old-style institutions for children and replaced them with modern child protection alternatives. Since 2000, it has reduced the number of children in care homes from 37 000 down to the present figure of 32 000.

Mr Piotrowski suggested – on a different matter entirely, but one that it is apposite to respond to, not least given the timing of this debate – that the Presidency’s proposals on the financial perspective for 2007 to 2013 could not accommodate Romania and Bulgaria and failed to meet the criteria for solidarity. I do not accept either charge.

On Romania and Bulgaria, our proposals fully respect their allocations under the accession agreements and provide for a historic shift of spending towards the new Member States and accession states and offer them greater flexibility as to how to distribute those European Union funds to the greatest possible effect. That historic shift in funding, which includes significant cuts in receipts for the United Kingdom, shows why our proposals are all about solidarity, which featured prominently in his remarks.

There is no virtue in repeating the word ‘solidarity’, while avoiding the difficult challenge of finding the common ground on which both net contributors and net recipients can meet in the course of the coming hours and coming days.

In relation to both Bulgaria and Romania, I would recognise that significant progress towards European Union accession on 1 January 2007 has been made, but more work needs to be undertaken. The Commission, under the capable leadership of Commissioner Rehn, will continue to monitor progress closely and will produce a follow-up report in April or May next year. This report will provide the basis for any decision on whether to activate the so-called ‘safeguard clause’. To avoid delay, Romania and Bulgaria must now step up the pace of reform in the critical months at the beginning of the coming year and, in particular, tackle corruption, which has featured so prominently in this debate this afternoon.

They have a short space of time in which to implement these reforms, but accession in 2007 is still achievable, as long as they fulfil those important, outstanding commitments.

(Applause)

  Olli Rehn, Commission. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first I wish to thank the Members for their objective and informative debate and their well-chosen words. It is also good that there was emphasis in the speeches on the fact that this is now about bringing to conclusion the latest, which is to say the fifth, round of enlargement. This is an addition to the historic upheaval which started with the collapse of the Berlin Wall more than 15 years ago.

My opinion is that the Commission and the European Parliament, as well as the Presidency, with reference to Mr Alexander’s important speech, should consider Bulgaria’s and Romania’s preparations for membership very much in the same way and putting emphasis on the same things. Reform of the judicial system in particular is absolutely essential. It is essential for the legal protection of the citizens of Bulgaria and Romania, it is essential from the point of view of economic dynamics and foreign investment, and it is also essential for the implementation of EU legislation in these countries.

We have a responsibility for ensuring that we assess fairly and objectively whether these countries are ready in this respect to accede to the Union in 2007. The same also applies to administrative reform, and especially the fight against corruption and criminality, and the elimination of problems in the area of agriculture and food safety.

The coming months will be decisive for both countries. Both have a chance to join in 2007, but only if both do all they can to meet the requirements and take the challenge absolutely seriously. I trust that there is nothing unclear about this, but, to be quite sure, I will repeat my message. What is crucial now is not any charm offensive in the capitals of the EU countries, but purposeful, practical action to carry through reforms in the legal system and in administration, and very determined action to combat corruption and crime.

Come spring, I would not like to find myself in a situation where, on behalf of the Commission, I have to propose recourse to the safeguard clauses, but it needs to be said that they have not been entered in the accession treaties for fun. This chance should be taken seriously in Bulgaria and Romania, and every endeavour should be made to achieve eligibility for membership, so that both countries can join in January 2007. We will be completely objective in our assessment of how prepared these countries are in the light of hard facts.

The Commission will support the reforms in Bulgaria and Romania, follow developments and in due course present Parliament and the Council with an assessment of this progress. It needs to be emphasised that we will need regular dialogue, as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs Elmar Brok, as well as others, said. I would suggest that we return to the matter during the spring, when we will have a more accurate idea of how Bulgaria and Romania have progressed in their efforts to achieve eligibility for membership at the beginning of 2007.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE). – I would like to draw your attention within the framework of the Moscovici Report on the importance of safeguarding the rights of the Hungarian minority, the largest minority in Romania. More specifically, I would like to draw your attention on paragraph 26 of the Report.

I understand that attempts have been made in order to erase from this paragraph the references to the principles of subsidiarity and self governance. My opinion is that these principles are fundamental principles of the European Union and therefore should not be erased.

Many promises were made by the Romanian political leadership for the safeguard of the rights of the Hungarian minority. It is about time now that Romania shows real political will to concretely implement these promises. The question is: if there is no problem with Hungarian minority's rights why would the Romanian leadership want to erase parts of paragraph 26?

I strongly believe that it is the political responsibility of the European Parliament to ensure that all aspects including minorities' protection are appropriately dealt with while addressing Romania's readiness to access the European Union. In my opinion, minority issues are indeed at least as important as economic issues.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE). – (FR) In spring 2006, the European Commission will submit to the Council its Final Opinion on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in January 2007. The accession of these countries depends on their ability to meet the commitments made in the accession treaty. If they cannot, the safeguard clauses delaying accession to 2008 could be invoked.

Although the reports relating to the readiness of Romania and Bulgaria stress how much progress has been made, particularly in terms of the market economy, it is clear that the pace of reform needs to be increased, particularly in Romania, in order to strengthen the administrative and legal system, fight corruption, integrate the Roma and improve border controls. Worrying delays have also been observed in implementing the acquis communautaire in the areas of agriculture, public contracts and the environment.

This enlargement faces the European Union with a twofold challenge: we must not disappoint the Bulgarian and Romanian citizens who have great hopes for this accession; but at the same time we need to explain to our citizens, at a time when the European Union is going through a major political and budgetary crisis, the good reasons for this enlargement, which is opposed by the large majority of public opinion.