IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

(The sitting was opened at 3 p.m.)

  President. − I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 22 May 2008.

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you that Lithuania celebrated the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Lithuanian independence movement Sąjūdis yesterday. Its foundation not only instigated the re-establishment of Lithuania’s independence but also heralded the collapse of the Soviet Union. My warmest congratulations!

(Applause)

I would like to make you aware of the Green Weeks that are taking place in Brussels this week and in Luxembourg and Strasbourg in the next two weeks. The central topics will be CO2 emissions and the associated climate change. We have undertaken to reduce the European Parliament’s CO2 emissions by 30% by the year 2020. In order to achieve this, a prestigious consulting firm is preparing a CO2 assessment for us, which will be ready in September and will be presented to the Bureau. The project will flow into an action plan containing both short and long-term measures so that the European Parliament can reach the goal it has set itself. I would be grateful for active interest on your part.

  President. − I would like to extend a very warm welcome to His Eminence the Metropolitan Galaktion of Stara Zagora in Bulgaria, who is seated with a delegation of Orthodox clergy in the distinguished visitors’ gallery.

(Applause)

Your Eminence, it was a pleasure to be able to speak to you this morning.

It is also a great pleasure for me to welcome the winners of the first Charlemagne Youth Prize to the European Parliament today. This prize is awarded jointly by the Foundation of the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen and the European Parliament. The award ceremony took place on 29 April in Aachen. Our young friends have been visiting the European Parliament since yesterday and are in the distinguished visitors’ gallery right now.

(Applause)

I welcome the winner of the first prize, representing the project ‘Students Without Boundaries’, Emöke Korzenszky from Hungary, Ilona Mikoczy from Slovakia, Agota Demeter from Romania and Zoltan Csadi from Slovakia. Lorenzo Marsili from the United Kingdom is representing the ‘Festival of Europe’ project in London, which won second prize. Last but not least, I welcome the winner of the third prize, which was awarded to the state grammar school in Vyronas, a suburb of Athens in Greece. Paraskevi Christodoulopoulou, you are most welcome.

On behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to thank you for your contributions to promoting the idea of European integration amongst young people.

(Applause)

I would also like to welcome a delegation from the Parliament of Navarre, Spain, who are seated in the distinguished visitors’ gallery. The delegation is headed by the Parliament’s President, Elena Torres Miranda. A warm welcome to you!

(Applause)

Today and tomorrow, the 10 members of the delegation will be meeting various representatives of the European Parliament and I too will have the pleasure of meeting them. I wish you a successful, positive stay in Brussels and visit to the European Parliament. Bienvenidos!

  President. − The Minutes of the sitting of Thursday 22 May 2008 have been distributed.

Are there any comments?

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE ). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank the staff of this House for organising the awards ceremony for the Energy Globe Awards, because it set a great example for the world and created an excellent impression of our Parliament. Thank you to everyone who took part.

  President. − It is permissible to express these words of thanks. It was not in the Minutes, but never mind.

(The Minutes of the previous sitting were approved.)

  President. − The next item is the joint debate on

– the report (A6-0189/2008 ) by Mr Saryusz-Wolski, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) presented to the European Parliament in application of point G, paragraph 43 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 – 2006 (2007/2219(INI) ) and

– the report (A6-0186/2008 ) by Mr Kuhne, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and ESDP (2008/2003(INI) ).

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, rapporteur . − Mr President, I should like to comment and express the views of Parliament on foreign policy during this debate, which is more than just a routine annual debate on foreign policy and the state of play of foreign policy in the Union: the participation of Mr Solana with us is a testimony that it is a special debate. Thank you for coming, Mr Solana.

First, we are at a very important juncture, if not a turning point, in terms of foreign policy because of the Lisbon Treaty innovations. We have to look back in order to evaluate as usual, but we also have to take a forward-looking approach. We have high and growing citizen support for foreign policy, for one which is genuine and robust. Member States’ perceptions increasingly change, seeing that speaking with one voice and acting in common is the only way to have an effective Union foreign policy.

Entering this new chapter of EU foreign policy, we are moving towards a qualitative change. The new foreign policy should draw its legitimacy not only from its intergovernmental source, but also from European Parliament scrutiny, hence, as we will see, the growing importance and role of the European Parliament in shaping this policy, as we called for in our report. We need an integrated and holistic approach to foreign policy, with cohesion, convergence and complementarity of all the institutions involved, including the Member States.

The European Union should continue its role as peace-maker and mediator, a soft power helping to stabilise, reconstruct and reform, a supplier of assistance and humanitarian aid, as a normative power, value-projecting and promoting democracy, freedom and human rights, but at the same time we should complement the soft dimension with a harder one by developing the ESDP dimension and our military capabilities to be prepared for power projection also.

We should complement our reactive policy to short- and medium-term challenges with a more long-term strategic approach and definition of European interests in the long term, by addressing the true causes and not only the effects of some changes around us like Darfur, which is both a climate and a conflict situation.

We should continue being active on various geographical priorities, but also face new challenges and horizontal issues like climate security, energy security, space security, cyber-security, migration flows and many others.

While aspiring to be a global power and a global actor, we should change the balance between being a payer, as we are and we want to be, and being a key player in the world arena. The new Treaty offers a huge potential for a coherent and effective foreign policy, but we all know that implementation will be crucial. We need collective will and cooperation, not only in the institutional triangle but also with Member States, and we have to avoid rivalries.

We tried to table a constructive approach in this report. We are concerned by some failures of foreign policy, but we look more to the future. We recognise positive evolution, progress and successes. We recommend challenging the failures but building on achievements, and identifying room for further progress.

The European Parliament’s ambition is not only to scrutinise the foreign policy, to make recommendations on which to base solutions and choices for the executive branch, but also to invest in its own foreign policy-making, which I call ‘parliamentary diplomacy’, as it is run within our competence at parliamentary level.

On priorities, we believe that we need a focused approach and a limited number of priorities. We underline the need for value-driven foreign policy, not because we are excessively idealistic or naive, but because a world around us which shares our own strong universal values will best serve our interests of security and prosperity.

Parliament considers the foreign policy of the Union as a contribution to strengthened European identity and also as value added for EU citizens and as part of the European Commission’s trajectory of a Europe of results.

We consider foreign policy as a key EU policy to be equipped with a proper institutional set-up, which the Lisbon Treaty brings about, proper instruments, and adequate financing out of the EU budget. We need a set of instruments at our disposal, and that is something which lies ahead of us.

  Helmut Kuhne, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, in our report, we wished to avoid repeating statements from previous reports on the European Security Strategy. Perhaps we have not entirely achieved this but I believe we can go further down this track in the future.

For example, one point that was decided on in earlier reports and that we did not address again for precisely that reason, but that should be mentioned here, is the European Parliament’s support for the European Security and Defence College. We would like this to become a real institution, not just a virtual one. Measured by European standards, time has passed very quickly since December 2003, when the European Security Strategy was adopted – perhaps not necessarily when measured by objective standards, but it can be said that the European Security Strategy has made significant practical progress during this time. There are some achievements to boast of, but I will not enumerate the different civilian and military missions here.

However, what we can show, structurally, is that, for the last year or so we have had a civilian control and planning instrument on the Council side and that there is now a clear chain of command from the building over there right down to those who have to carry out operations on the ground. From the military perspective, we have strengthened operational capability beyond the use of NATO capabilities in accordance with the Berlin Plus Agreement. We have made the Battle Groups, which are supposed to work on rotation, operable. We have also carried out operations that we can declare successful, such as the missions in the area of the rule of law in Georgia and other similar missions.

However, there are some tasks that still have to be undertaken and where, in my opinion, there are still deficits, and it does not make the Security Strategy any poorer if we list these points. When measured by the population figures for the EU Member States, there is an imbalance in the contributions to the missions, particularly in the civilian area. We therefore propose that the Member States be obliged – whether morally or by other means – to issue action plans detailing what staff capabilities they can make available to the European Union should it become necessary, including statements on the career prospects of people who return to their own country after serving on EU missions. In the long term, we cannot manage the agonising mechanism of providing troops for military actions such as Darfur and Chad, as we have done up to this point. We are therefore suggesting alternative options.

We are also making several suggestions for dealing with the helicopter crisis and increasing the availability of helicopters. In the long term, it makes no sense for us in the European Union to be flying around in 24 different types of helicopter.

In addition, there are new developments that we must consider as we reflect further on the Security Strategy. Terrorist activity has brought about a blurring of the boundaries between internal and external borders. Securing energy supply through diplomatic, economic and technical – and I am deliberately not saying military – means must be tackled. Securing sensitive infrastructures against electronic attacks is something we have become aware of. All these things need to be included in our consideration of aspects of the Security Strategy that may need to be expanded upon.

Mr Solana, the EU High Representative, has a specific mandate from the Council to think about such things. We support him in that. We would hope to see the result of these deliberations towards the end of the year in the form of a White Paper so that there is a common reference point for European discussion, not only for discussion between Mr Solana and the governments, not only between him and us, not only in the national parliaments, but also in the interests of the European public, from Poland to Portugal.

  Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy . − Mr President, let me start by thanking Parliament for inviting me to this important debate on the European Union’s foreign policy, security and defence in the plenary sitting of the European Parliament.

However, before entering into the substance, let me at once condemn the terrorist attack against the Danish Embassy in Islamabad on Monday and express my condolences to the Danes and Pakistanis and the families of the dead and injured. Let us remember them and in particular those who suffered there. I was in Islamabad not long ago and I would like to report on that trip, if the sitting allows me the time.

I wish to thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Saryusz-Wolski and Mr Kuhne, for their reports. I think that there are many excellent points in these reports on how we can strengthen the European Union's overall impact around the world, in line with our values, in line with our interests. I would like to congratulate them and reassure them, and all of you, that we will take as many of the remarks as possible into consideration because I think they are very constructive, very positive and because of that they will be considered by me.

This is a very important session and I would like to address some of the issues which are in both reports. In the time allowed me I would like to talk about those issues that are more pertinent today on the international affairs agenda, to see how we can contribute to the resolution of the problems of today.

I should like to say a couple of words about the Treaty that has been referred to by the rapporteurs. In both reports there are many references to the Treaty of Lisbon and it is very clear why. Those reports ask for more efficiency. The main point of the Treaty is to make the European Union’s work more efficient, more visible, especially in foreign and security policy. I am convinced that the Treaty will solve many of the problems identified in the report in particular by Mr Kuhne.

The first priority for all of us is to get the Treaty ratified. We all still have to work in that direction in the coming days. I would like to underline that the Slovenian Presidency was mandated by the December European Council to take forward the work on preparing for the smooth entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

The work, as you know, has been guided by a few basic principles that we share. The starting point of all this discussion is the Treaty itself. It has to be respected in full. The second thing is that the overall aim is that the Treaty enters into force as previously agreed and that means on 1 January 2009 if things can go smoothly.

Many aspects of the Treaty are of fundamental interest to you, to the European Parliament and – as we are talking about foreign and security policy – on that particular issue. Both the Presidency and the Commission and myself have had the opportunity to discuss many of these issues with some of you, and I would like to guarantee that I will continue to do so from my time here today until the moment the Treaty enters into force. It is vital to my mind that the three main institutions work together to ensure the smooth implementation of the Treaty.

Let me say a word about the European External Action Service. As you know, I have a mandate as High Representative in Office from Declaration 15 of the Treaty to carry out preparatory work with the Commission and with the Member States. I am doing that. I am implementing this mandate with the clear objective of having the decision to establish the EAS adopted as soon as possible after the entry into force of the Treaty.

Mr Kuhne mentioned the European Security Strategy. Let me make some comments on how I see the situation today. The mandate that I received, the mandate from the Council last December, asked me to produce another report by December 2008. I will follow up with discussions with you all in order to obtain the best modifications necessary.

The strategy has proved very useful. That has been recognised by the rapporteur and I thank him for that. In the last four years I think it has been an instrument that has done good service. The document was short but at the same time it is a document which is readable and therefore I think it has complied with this purpose.

I think that this strategy reflects our values, it reflects our principles, it reflects how we should come back to foreign and security policy. I think the task mandated by the European Council last December is not about changing the text; it is more about improving the text and complementing it wherever possible.

It is important to reflect on the international situation at the moment it was written – remember it was 2003. Things have taken place in this period of time – probably not fundamental enough to change the content of the strategy – but they complement the issues from this period. Lessons have been learned and debates have taken place in Parliament and in the institutions. Therefore I consider the input from Parliament to be very valuable, also through the report of the rapporteur, Mr Kuhne, which is most welcome.

I will report orally to the European Council in two weeks’ time about this issue, how the work is being done. At that moment I will get something back from the Member States on the thinking about this issue and I will listen to you and all the comments you have made today. There will then be further discussion and an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers – the Gymnich – in the month of September and we will continue talking about these issues among ourselves here in Parliament.

I think that the timing is very important. December 2008 will be the fifth anniversary of the ESS. Hopefully by then the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified, therefore improving the coherence of our action. On the key threats that the strategy contemplates, I think those identified in 2003 were the right ones. I think we would agree on that. Weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, organised crime, regional conflicts – basically those have not changed. It is still as relevant today, as I said, and we have to continue fighting actively along these lines.

The strategy was based on an analysis of the major global challenges at that time, but today, as I said, some are more relevant than others five years ago, and we also have new ones. Remember – as has been mentioned already by the rapporteurs – climate change and its effects on international security, energy security – which now has to be contemplated in depth – were not contemplated in the strategy. The same applies to migration – illegal migration in particular – and information security. They were not contemplated, and should be now. We have to take those developments into account.

Let me say a word also about the ESDP, which the rapporteur mentioned. I think we can say without exaggeration that it has been a success. It has been an important and very visible part of the CFSP. Over the last five years – and it is good to recognise that – we have deployed more than 15 missions – in fact 17. We now have 14 of them – civilian and military – in action on three continents: Europe – in the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East and Asia. That is well recognised in the reports and I appreciate that very much.

However, Mr Kuhne’s report highlights some of the challenges and shortfalls we face in the ESDP and I agree with most of the things that have been said.

We are working on it: we are taking into account the lessons learned from the missions; we are adapting our structures, both on the civilian and on the military side; we are trying to make it so that there is more civilian and military cooperation, i.e. to have a comprehensive approach, which I think is also the intention of the report.

Good progress was made at last week’s Council meeting with the Foreign Affairs and Defence Ministers. An important decision was taken. The rapporteur Mr Kuhne mentioned the key word ‘helicopters’, which, as you know, is one of the difficulties that the international community is facing now with regard to crisis management operations. The capabilities we need are not here and the capabilities we have are not ready or not the most suitable for the challenges of today.

The decision for the Defence Agency to concentrate on that tactical issue of helicopters is operational from today and I hope very much that you will receive information from the military in the European Union. That is something that I hope will be tackled in a coherent manner.

Let me say a few words about the situation in the world today: the hot spots and the things we are trying to resolve. Let me start with the Western Balkans. As you know there are still elements to be resolved in the Western Balkans. What happened at the elections on Sunday in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is something that should make us think. However, I should like to report to you that, since the last time we spoke, two important things have taken place in Serbia: the SAA has been signed with the Serbs and elections have taken place. I think the results of the elections have something to do with our behaviour and let us hope that we can have a government in Serbia that will look to the European perspective of Serbia.

Let me say a word about Kosovo. In Kosovo, as you know, by 15 June the global package of laws, including the constitution that was promised from the day of the independence of Kosovo, will be operational. By that time we would like to have the situation on the ground moving in the right direction, i.e. EULEX moving in the right direction. We are in permanent contact with the Secretary-General of the United Nations to see how this can be done and I hope very much that in a few days I will be able to report to you that progress has been made.

It is more than natural that I say a word about Georgia. I am going to Georgia tomorrow morning. I will be visiting Tbilisi and the authorities there. I will also visit Abkhazia. It is very important that we also visit Abkhazia to try to establish direct contact between the two sides in the framework of the Friends of the Secretary-General for the moment and see whether another, more active, format can be put in place. I do not think that we will be able to resolve everything this week, but I hope very much that we will make a positive and constructive contribution.

I should report to you in addition on the situation in Lebanon, where important events have also recently taken place. I, together with the President of Parliament, had the privilege to be there that Sunday. It was a very moving moment when the agreement was reached. General Suleiman is now the President after 18 months of instability. The building where we were that afternoon had been closed and was now open. I hope that the decision that was reached in Doha in Qatar will allow the evolution of Lebanon towards peace and to an election in 2009.

As you know, this agreement is not perfect: it has positive elements but it also has elements that are not so positive. Let us hope that our help and coherence in our actions in the months to come will help further the process, because, at the moment, it is still not complete. The Prime Minister has been reappointed. Mr Siniora is a dignified man, a man we should respect. He is in charge of the government now. Let us hope that he will be able to arrive safely to the election process in the middle of 2009.

I would like to talk about many other things, but with this speech – and I think I have exceeded my time – I have given you at least an idea of the issues I will be tackling during the next few months.

I would also like to tell you that I will be Tehran. I have not been there since June 2006. Since that time I have had many meetings with the leaders of Tehran. However, I have decided, together with the six countries involved in these negotiations, to go back to Tehran to meet its leaders. I will carry with me an upgraded offer from the one that we made in 2006. I do not expect miracles but I think it is important for us to continue extending a hand and to make it clear that we have a twin-track approach: negotiations to solve the basic issues, in particular the nuclear issue, but, at the same time, to continue using what the Security Council has to offer.

(Applause)

  President. − We thank you, High Representative, for your speech and we wish you well for all your dangerous journeys. I think the safest place for you to be is the European Parliament. It must always be a pleasure for you to be here!

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteurs, Mr Saryusz-Wolski and Mr Kuhne, for the constructive, comprehensive and future-oriented approach upon which both reports were based.

Given the wide range of topics covered by the two reports, I would like to limit myself to several aspects that are particularly relevant for the Commission, that is, the implementation of the Lisbon Reform Treaty, the European Security Strategy, the Neighbourhood Policy and the issue of joint action, particularly the Commission’s role within the framework of crisis management.

Like most of you, the Commission also hopes that the new Reform Treaty will be ratified this year. If we are to better represent the interests of all EU citizens on the world stage, then the Treaty is vital. A secure, economically healthy, socially balanced and stable Europe that, at the same time, plays a leading role on a world stage that reflects its economic influence, needs a strong EU foreign policy. Therefore, everything that will finally result in a cohesive foreign policy should be supported. This is not primarily an institutional problem or a problem of procedure, nor is it a problem of legal principles – it is a political problem. For EU foreign policy to be effective, all Member States must summon the necessary political will to support the European Union’s common interests. This would in any case be in everyone’s interests. United we stand, divided we fall. We have the choice.

The Commission is currently preparing its contribution to reworking the European Security Strategy. Today we see new dangers and challenges to which the narrow idea of security from 2003 can no longer respond appropriately. The idea of threat now needs to be reformulated, and more significance should be given to the links between security and development, security and energy, security and climate change and even to concerns that we are experiencing at the moment, such as the increase in prices, the availability of commodities, the risk of food shortages and the whole issue of migration.

In this respect, the CFSP and ESS/ESDP annual reports contain many points on which the Commission is in agreement. I expect that these points will also be accepted by the European Council in December 2008.

Promoting democratisation in other countries must continue to be a central element of our foreign policy strategy. We have experience in this; the expansion of the European Union, during which we have gained important experience that we can apply to the benefit of the European Neighbourhood Policy, is a successful example.

The Neighbourhood Policy is now one of our most important instruments – if not the most important instrument – for strengthening peace and stability in our part of the world and helping to create prosperity and security. Our ambition must continue to be to achieve as much integration as possible into Community policies. To enable our partner countries to really benefit from this offer, we need a peaceful solution to continuing conflicts, about which Mr Solana has just spoken so movingly, be they in the Caucasus, Moldova, the Middle East or Western Sahara.

The overall development and therefore the global influence of the European Union depend on optimal use of all its resources and instruments. Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. We have already made use of a range of Community instruments, including development aid and humanitarian aid, to support the EU’s crisis management measures – from Afghanistan to Kosovo, from the Middle East to Chad.

In addition, the budget administered by the Commission for the CFSP has been increased tremendously, almost ten-fold since 2002. There are currently 11 ESDP missions in the areas of policy, the rule of law and monitoring and two further missions in the military area. The Commission is now included in the planning of these missions from the beginning as a matter of course. This was the case with the operations in Kosovo, Chad and the Central African Republic.

In this connection, let me say a few words about the Instrument for Stability. This important new Community funding mechanism has been added to the crisis management and conflict prevention instruments and has been allocated an average of more than EUR 200 million a year for the period from 2007 to 2013. The Commission believes that the Instrument for Stability has proved that it was worthwhile implementing it, in terms of both administration of funds and the quality of the measures taken.

The Commission would very much welcome closer interinstitutional cooperation in relation to the European Union’s external activities if this could guarantee more coherence, efficiency and visibility for EU foreign policy. The Commission is of the opinion that we should pool our energies. That is what Europe needs. That is what the people of Europe – and also the international community – expect from us.

Thank you for your attention.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, Mr Solana, ladies and gentlemen, if, as we hope, the Treaty of Lisbon comes into force on 1 January 2009, this will mark the start of a new era for the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. This policy was a gamble, but it is precisely this that allows the European Union to prove itself as a global player. Despite considerable progress, Europe still has a long way to go before, as an economic giant but a political dwarf, it can become a global political power punching at its economic weight.

As Mr Saryusz-Wolski indicated in his excellent report, Europe’s role in the world is still far from reaching its true potential. In Israel, Palestine and all over the world, our interlocutors are demanding to see more from Europe. We should listen to their demands. In order to be credible with these partners, the Union must not only speak with one voice, but also have the necessary instruments to make itself heard. Its foreign policy must have democratic legitimacy, which will be afforded by the parliamentary scrutiny introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Ladies and gentlemen, we want a credible defence for Europe, not so that we can go to war, naturally, but so that we can ensure peace and more importantly help the world’s poorest. Our common security is no longer limited to military protection against external attack. It also covers energy supply, climate change, migration management and the promotion of human rights and civil liberties.

The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is committed to ensuring that all aspects of this common security are taken into account. We are of the view that the EU’s foreign policy must first of all focus on our closest neighbours. That is why we are asking the Commission and the Council to work towards strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy and bringing stability to the situation in the Western Balkans. Specifically, it is imperative that we continue the dialogue with Serbia while continuing to support Kosovo. The collaboration between the Council and Parliament has not always been easy when it comes to these matters. The Council has not always been open and transparent enough for our liking, but our relations have progressed a great deal nonetheless. The Council Presidency and Mr Solana now recognise that the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy will be stronger and fairer if it has the backing of Parliament.

On behalf of the PPE-DE Group, I would like to ask the Council to go further, to join Parliament in discussions on the appointment of the first High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission and to engage in proper consultation with them. We would also like Parliament to be consulted on how to establish a European External Action Service. In terms of the implementation of the European Security Strategy, our group calls on the High Representative to publish a White Paper in order to assess the strategy introduced in 2003.

In the context of the future Treaty, we are calling for a reinforcement of the budgetary powers of Parliament in all areas of EU spending. We are also lobbying for instruments of parliamentary scrutiny and cooperation with the Council.

Ladies and gentlemen, in a world where regional powers hold sway, the European Union must seize the unique opportunities represented by the new instruments of the Treaty to establish itself as a political power which is both more homogeneous, and therefore more able to make itself heard on the international stage, and firmer with its partners. Increased parliamentary scrutiny will make this policy even more effective, because it will be more democratic and more transparent.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Kuhne on his report, especially since it applies a very comprehensive definition of security and therefore defines a comprehensive range of security policy instruments which, naturally, includes the military, although it is not based exclusively on military measures. Mr Wiersma will go into this in more detail. I would also like to thank Mr Saryusz-Wolski very much for his effective cooperation, which we recently experienced in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I would like to mention two matters. The first – and we have already discussed it today in our group, as Mr Schulz has already mentioned – is the question of energy security and common energy policy. We are not interested in criticising bilateral agreements that were concluded in an era when there was no discussion about a common security policy. However, such agreements are still being concluded now, and especially for the future, it is important to make it clear that, when such agreements are concluded, they must be embedded in a common security policy and a common energy policy.

Today I spoke with a prominent representative from Azerbaijan who is here in Parliament. He said, ‘Friends, you present quite differently from China and Russia’. This is not acceptable! We must appear united if we want to pursue common goals, and he was right to point this out.

This brings me to my second matter, which we will deal with in more detail in the Brok report. There is a lot of talk now about the Union for the Mediterranean. As a group, we are calling for a Union for the Black Sea region too. This is also an important region, in which we must do a great deal, particularly in our own interests. I thank Mr Saryusz-Wolski for having addressed this matter.

The proposal, as we have it from Poland and Sweden, is good. We support it, but it does not go far enough. We must go further if we really want to represent our political interests in this region in particular. Obviously, we support this, in connection with this report and will discuss it further in connection with the Brok report, so that our common neighbours in the east and the south become co-advisers, involved with us in managing and implementing the European goals.

Finally, a remark on the diplomatic service – the High Representative, Mr Solana, also mentioned it. There is a lot of discussion about it and we will also produce a report on it, but let me make one thing clear: we need a diplomatic service that is viable and is acceptable to the Commission, the Council and the Member States, one that is efficient and can really take its political responsibility seriously, including its responsibility to this Parliament. For us, the critical thing is to make it clear that this service – however it is organised – is, of course, responsible to the European Parliament through the High Representative.

A final remark on Iran: Mr Solana, I wish you good luck in Iran. Obviously we are taking the same approach, which is to be flexible, but to state clearly that we do not want any more atomic weapons, especially in that region. They would create further insecurity, not more security. All the best, then, in successfully establishing these fundamental principles.

(Applause)

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Solana, the reports by Mr Saryusz-Wolski and Mr Kuhne are important pieces of work, and discussing every aspect of these within such a short period of time would be impossible. For that reason, I shall be focussing on three aspects.

Firstly, the role of our Parliament in foreign and defence matters; secondly, the very great responsibility of all Member States to establish a coherent and effective foreign and security policy; and, finally, the need for us to continue combating the proliferation of nuclear weapons and working towards general arms control. The fact that we are holding this debate with these participants here this afternoon is excellent evidence of the degree to which we, the European Parliament, have succeeded in assuming a greater role in foreign and security policy, even though, according to the current treaties, that was not initially to be the case. It is our perseverance that has led to this, as well as the understanding which has been shown to us by both the Commission and the High Representative and which led to an interinstitutional agreement that makes debates such as this possible. We shall of course make use of every possibility offered by the Treaty of Lisbon in order to continue playing our role to the full. Incidentally, it is also due to the fact that we have never pushed too far, that we have taken care ‘not to overplay our hand’, as they say in English, that we have been able to fill this role.

It is clear that, as Mr Swoboda emphasised, an effective foreign and security policy is only possible if all 27 Member States and the governments of these Member States, including the large ones, take concerted action. We can indeed deliver fine speeches here, everyone can deliver fine speeches here, but if Heads of State or Government, prime ministers or Ministers of Foreign Affairs go off and do things differently on the world stage then it is not possible, it will not succeed. The responsibility of our Member States is therefore particularly great, not only in the field I have mentioned, but also to ensure that their words are followed by action. We had painful experience of this when preparing for the intervention in Chad, for example. An affirmative decision was made and then it took weeks to gather the troops and all the material. Such things do great damage to our credibility, and I hope, therefore, that we shall all make huge efforts to ensure the least possible chance of this happening again in the future.

  Angelika Beer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will not repeat all the congratulations or re-emphasise the points on which we actually agree: that is, the call for a coherent foreign and security policy, such as Mr Saryusz-Wolski has formulated for us, and of course the question of parliamentary scrutiny and transparency. When we return to our national Member States we notice in all our discussions that, the more the European Union becomes involved in foreign and security policy, the more we wish to and must promote these instruments for transparency and legitimacy amongst the population of our own country.

I would like to address the contentious points that no one else has mentioned yet. Mr Verheugen, in the first debate we discussed the draft of Mr Kuhne’s report with Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner. She, like my group, emphasised that it is beneficial that we keep on thinking about this, that we not only discuss reworking the European Security Strategy but also try to formulate a joint mission statement, namely the question of human security and the responsibility to protect. Anyone who has been following what has happened since then will have been aware of the strange coalition of the conservatives under Mr von Wogau and the communists under Mr Pflüger. The relevant passage has been deleted, with the support of both groups, and we will make a fresh request for it to be included, since if we do not meet this political challenge, we will lose our credibility with regard to the way we deal with this topic, that is, with conflict prevention, but also with the question of what we do about Darfur, Chad and other conflicts that we should be wary of.

The second thing, which I find absurd, even though we have not yet reached consensus on it, is that the conservatives under Mr von Wogau are requesting that we take the US national security strategy into account in the future within the framework of the European Security Strategy and our reworking of it. That is completely absurd, because this policy has run aground and we know that the US Administration has failed with this escalation, this unilateralism, and that it has cost many lives. To then say that we should absorb this into our future European foreign policy – I find that more than absurd!

Thirdly, I would like to raise an extremely important matter: proliferation. Mr Solana, I also wish you every success. We need dialogue, including with Iran, but I would ask my fellow Members this: when we are talking about energy security which, after all, is part of wider security – is it the correct response when Mr Sarkozy, as the future President-in-Office of the Council of the European Union, announces that he wants to place nuclear technology on the world market without restriction and with no means of monitoring it? What happens to our credibility then? Firstly, we are not effecting nuclear disarmament, which we are supposed to be doing. Secondly, we are circulating this technology even though we know that it can always be abused from a military aspect. I believe we are making a mistake in this and therefore we will also be submitting an amendment.

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (GA) Mr President, cooperation and coordination on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is important between EU Member States. There are new global threats and I believe that the Lisbon Treaty and the CFSP will move us closer to disabling those threats. The CFSP is more than policy implementation. It entails 27 Member States working together to ensure peace, human rights, the rule of law and democracy throughout the world. The Lisbon Treaty contains these same principle and they fully conform to Irish values.

In congratulating both of the rapporteurs on their work in this particular area and taking into account our experience over the last number of years, it is particularly important that we are cognisant of the fact that too often Europe has spoken with great words but failed to live up to the expectation. That is why, as we look forward to the development of new policies, without in any way anticipating what the outcome of the referendum in Ireland will be – which I hope will be positive towards the adoption and ratification of the Lisbon Treaty – we must remember always that unless the Member States, acting collectively, can agree to common positions and to moving forward, fine words will be spoken but action will fail.

The most recent example of that was what happened in Chad. Despite the horrors of what we saw with regard to the refugees on the Chad and Sudanese border, despite the desire of every Member State to be seen to do something, our failure to deliver the logistics of bringing the forces into Chad highlighted our shortcomings.

When we speak about the future threats, future opportunities and, indeed, the future dangers, we must always be cognisant of the fact that Europe is the greatest peace project of all. The work that we do, and what we have achieved and built in the European Union since 1958, has proven that acting collectively, cooperating with tolerance and understanding of different points of view is a far greater power and tool than any weapons we can put at our disposal. But that is not to be naive and to say that we do not need to have resources at our disposal. However, we must keep in mind that all Member States must act in unanimity in finding new foreign and defence policies for the future, and that if one country says ‘no’, they cannot be diminished or demonised because of that.

  Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, the two reports we are discussing are a clear sign of the advanced stage the militarisation of the European Union has reached.

I wish to address several aspects, for example the very close EU-NATO cooperation, which is absolutely fatal. NATO is also an alliance for waging war and we are opposed to this close cooperation between the European Union and NATO.

Thank you again for clarifying that the Lisbon Treaty will bring fundamental changes in the military area. That is an essential reason why we are against the Lisbon Treaty and I would like to point out that it has not yet been ratified and that I am hoping for a ‘no’ in Ireland on 12 June.

Part of the Lisbon Treaty – which also appears in Mr Kuhne’s report – is that an independent EU military budget, known as the start-up fund, should be created. We think this creates a whole host of problems.

Parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions is not guaranteed. EU Battle Groups are supposed to be able to be deployed within 5-30 days and the German Bundestag cannot be involved within that timeframe. It was not possible to achieve agreement on parliamentary scrutiny between all groups, partly because we demanded that all groups, including the smaller ones, should receive the appropriate information. Apparently this Parliament does not want that.

The report calls for further armament projects. We believe that this is wrong. Previous EU missions must first be thoroughly evaluated. This is long overdue. French soldiers who were part of Operation Artemis in Congo used torture. The operation in Chad is a disaster and the EULEX mission in Kosovo – supposedly a rule of law mission – has no legal basis.

The two reports are heading in completely in the wrong direction. Therefore, we as a group have put forward a minority opinion. It has now become evident what the French Presidency plans to do in the military realm. There will be a further push for militarisation; marine and air Battle Groups have already been mentioned. We do not want a military European Union. We do not want a military alliance. We want a civil European Union. For these reasons, we say a definite ‘no’ to these two reports.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group . – Mr President, both of these reports assume that the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution will be ratified, despite the fact that the result of the Irish referendum will not be known until 12 June. But of course this Parliament has already decided that it will ignore the Irish referendum if it results in a ‘no’ vote.

The European Union does not want its foreign policy and military ambitions to be subject to the will of the people of Europe’s nation states by means of referenda, because it knows very well that they will reject those ambitions if given a choice. And what ambitions they are. These reports show how the EU intends to build its military forces by such means as combining multinational forces, building common command and control structures, adopting common equipment and systems procurement policies, and implementing common communication systems. They envisage combining existing multinational forces and that there should be a standing force under EU command. And there we have the beginnings of a European standing army. These plans endanger NATO and undermine the nation states’ positions within the United Nations – which the European Union seeks to usurp.

I recently attended a security conference in Brussels in which someone posed the question: who fears the European Union? Meaning, of course, that without the threat of military force, no-one will take the EU’s foreign policy pretensions seriously. During the latter part of the Second World War, one of Stalin’s staff said that the Pope disapproved of certain of his foreign policy actions. To which Stalin replied: ‘and how many divisions does the Pope have?’

The European Union intends to have its divisions in order to enforce its will and make itself feared on the world stage. And if we want to know what that will look like, just imagine the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy repeated with guns, tanks and aeroplanes.

The only people in Europe being allowed a say on this are the Irish in their referendum of 12 June. One of the key factors influencing the minds of the Irish will be to preserve their historical policy of neutrality. But do they realise that if Lisbon is ratified neutrality will end and they will become subject to the foreign policy and military ambitions of the European Union? But they will not only lose their neutrality, they will find themselves helping to pay for soldiers and armaments to undertake military operations that they may not approve of.

They should seriously consider these things before deciding which way to vote in their referendum. The British Government and Houses of Parliament have shamefully betrayed the British people by denying them a referendum on Lisbon. Irish neutrality is at stake, but so is the very ability of Britain to defend itself.

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  Irena Belohorská (NI ). – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by saying that I welcome the 2006 annual report and the progress achieved in the structure of the report. The European Parliament must adopt a more resolute position and act as one in the issues concerned that the Council should deal with systematically. In this regard, I welcome the provisions concerning closer cooperation between the European Parliament and the national parliaments, as well as the increased responsibility of the national parliaments and Member State governments with regard to strategic decisions.

I believe that representatives of the new Member States will find their place, too, in the new structure of the European diplomatic services. In my opinion, thanks to the Lisbon Treaty Europe will present a more united front in the area of external relations. It is important for the Member States to increase the frequency of consultations with their partners as well as with the EU High Representative, in particular with regard to adopting fundamental decisions. The single legal personality of the Union will make it possible for the European Union to conclude international agreements and join international organisations. When adopting these binding decisions, the European citizens’ concerns and expectations regarding issues of an international nature should also be taken into account.

  Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. − (ES) Mr President, allow me to take my turn by briefly congratulating those who have spoken on behalf of the parliamentary groups. I think that in general terms, while there has not been unanimity, there has been a broad consensus on many of the matters that we have covered in the first part of the debate.

(FR) I should first of all like to thank Mr Daul from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. You expressed yourself clearly on the objectives of the ESS revision and on the aims of the Treaty of Lisbon in general. I fully share your position and believe that it is crucial to strengthen the voice and human dimension of the Union.

I honestly believe that Europe has a duty not only to its citizens, but to those outside Europe. The whole world is voicing its hope that Europe will adopt a clearer approach and take more effective action. I therefore fully share the comments of the PPE-DE Group and will make every effort to bring about effective cooperation with all of the institutions between now and the entry into force of the Treaty. This is the mandate that was given to me under Article 15 of the Treaty, and I will endeavour to fulfil this obligation.

I would also like to reply to Mr Swoboda – not to disagree with him but, on the contrary, to say that many of the things he has said are very much to my way of thinking and to the way I would like to see things moving. I think the cooperation you mentioned between civilians and the military is fundamental. We are in the business of crisis management and not in any other business. In crisis management all the instruments should be at the disposal of the European Union to make the utmost of its capabilities.

But, again, the most important thing is to have political will. We may have the capabilities, but if we do not have political will we have nothing. We may not have the capabilities in any case. Therefore, we have to work in both directions, with capabilities but also with political will. The construction of political will is something that everybody in this beautiful building has to work on, together with the other institutions of the European Union.

Let me say a word about the report by Mr Saryusz-Wolski. There were paragraphs in the report with which I agree from A to Z. I would like to underline the paragraphs on Afghanistan for instance because Afghanistan is a very important issue on which we have responsibilities. I did not have the opportunity to mention in my introductory remarks that for me – and for us I hope – Afghanistan is one of the challenges that we have on the table and we have to be able to construct a resolution that has to be political. Therefore, what you said about the police mission in the report is very important. We need members of the police there. As you know, at the last European Foreign Affairs Council we agreed to double the number of people deployed.

But I would also like to underline what you said about quality. It is true that when we talk about the rule of law, police and judges they are not at our disposal – they are working in their national Member States on other issues and therefore we have to see how we can go from here to the time when we will have at our disposal a European group of policemen, group of judges and group of social actors that could be deployed rapidly. That may be possible with the military because, fortunately, if they are not in a crisis-management operation, they may be available for deployment. We have to think about that and not only think but also find answers to those questions.

I should like to say that, on the whole, the speeches have been very constructive. I should like to comment on the paragraph on human security. Mrs Beer, you know very well that I am very attached to that concept. Marie Colvin is one of my friends and I have written some of those pieces with her. I think that is a concept that illuminates much of our modern thinking as far as security is concerned. Therefore, it does not matter what we call it, the important thing is what we do. The name is important but what we do is more important than the name. I think that all the reports are illuminated by that belief: that security is something that goes beyond a classical concept.

But, with respect, I have to disagree with some of the remarks, starting with the remark by the representative of the Commission. I really do not think that the security strategy has to be revised because it had a very narrow concept of security. I do not think this is a good statement. I think, concerning the security strategy written in 2003, that most of the limits there are the same elements, the same challenges, the same problems that we have today. We may have to complement and we may have to act, but I do not characterise the strategy as a narrow vision of security. On the contrary, it is the most open-minded approach that the European Union has ever had on this problem.

For the sake of clarity, I think that what we have to do is not to write a new text but to maintain as much as possible of the core, i.e. the mandate we have, and try to add elements. For example many of you have mentioned the question of energy security – which is important – and the question of the consequences of climate change in all its dimensions, the question of how to tackle the responsibility that we have with disasters that are natural and not manmade, for which we have resources and capabilities that have been put in place to combat such dramatic events.

Concerning proliferation: I have spoken about that on almost every occasion I have been given the opportunity – the risks and the importance that issue has for all of us. I think if we were to pick two horizontal issues we have to tackle, one would be climate change and the other would be proliferation and disarmament. Those are the two main issues that may put at risk much of what we value in life. Therefore, I agree with that.

I would like to say a few words to my dear friend, Brian Crowley. I think the important thing is to deliver, and I agree with him. However, take the example of Chad. I do not know whether that was the best example you could have chosen. I was in Chad a couple of weeks ago. I went to the capital, to the second city and to Goz Beida, where the Irish Battalion is deployed with very high spirits and enormous professionalism. That is something that should make us proud. I feel proud of the work the Irish Battalion is doing in the middle of the savannah, trying to help the displaced people in the refugee camps, with tremendous generosity. I applaud the Irish soldiers who are there, who have a very generous attitude and are fully determined to make things better on the ground, which is the objective of the mission.

I would like to thank you, Mr President, and all the parliamentary groups and I hope very much that in the time we have ahead of us, as we approach the end of the year 2008, we will be able to work constructively towards making the dream of so many citizens of the European Union a reality – the implementation of the Treaty in order to have a Europe that has a presence in the international community, in the world, that is proportional to our ideas, our principles, our capabilities and our standard of living.

  Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE ). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Solana, I would first like to thank Mr Kuhne for his report and for the way he went about it, which meant that we were able to achieve unity on almost all points.

Mr Solana, a few months ago, you attended Mr Polin’s funeral in Bayonne. He was the first soldier to have lost his life in a European operation. For me, this was a very moving event, a very sad event, which caused me to think very carefully again about when we actually deploy soldiers and under what conditions.

This is also, at the same time, my answer to Mrs Beer and the concept of human security. The concept of human security is certainly an interesting one – including for development aid. Without security, there is no development. However, I am not sure that this concept is appropriate for the European Union’s security and defence policy, as it would be possible to take it to mean that we should intervene in every case, all over the world. That raises expectations that it may not be possible to fulfil. When people are in need, they do not look for the one who has the best intentions but for the one who can actually help them. This is the weakness in this concept, and nothing would be worse than raising false hopes here. My group will therefore be voting against mentioning this principle.

The French Presidency is ahead of us and along with it, there will most probably also be some important decisions to make. I have mentioned this already: more and more soldiers are being sent on dangerous missions. We have a responsibility to ensure that that they also have the necessary equipment, the best possible equipment for these operations. That is not yet the case in many areas. We have shortcomings in telecommunications and – this is extremely important – in the civil area and in civil operations. We have deficits in reconnaissance and navigation. Here I expect concrete suggestions to be made so that, in the future, there will be closer cooperation and so that such projects and shortcomings will be solved together in the European way.

The report in front of us demands that Eurocorps be permanently subject to the European Union. In my opinion, this would be a great step forward compared to Battle Groups, which are only ever made available to the European Union for a six-month period. I am calling for the European Security and Defence College that Mr Kuhne mentioned to become more than just a virtual college so that it is given the means with which to perform its task.

  Jan Marinus Wiersma (PSE ). – (NL) Mr President, I should like to make a number of comments on the European Security Strategy in the report by my esteemed colleague Mr Kuhne. He worked on it of course with the full support of my group, and we believe the result is excellent. Nevertheless, I should also like to bring a number of observations to the attention of the High Representative.

This Security Strategy is in place and was developed in 2003 as a major innovation. The essence of the Strategy of course remains in place. What we are discussing now are adaptations to a transformed international agenda. Effective multilateralism is an important principle. The combination of civil and military aspects is of major importance. Modern threat analysis is also important. There are many positive examples of how the European Union, under the direction of Mr Solana, has dealt with this in the past few years. It is actually the same approach, but a broader agenda is being applied. Everyone is saying that you cannot just talk about terrorism and about traditional security problems: you must also examine the way in which problems relating to energy security and climate threat are important to our security agenda. That is the broad agenda.

I should nevertheless like to stand up for the narrow agenda. It is not just about the security of states; it is about the security of people also. I think it a good thing that Mr Kuhne has tried to spark this debate here in Parliament, just as we had a whole discussion on the ‘responsibility to protect’ in the UN, another discussion that concerns individuals. We must indeed examine how this can be incorporated into our concept, and I therefore think it a shame that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats does not wish to participate in shaping these ideas. When we talk about human security, we mean not that there should be automatic intervention in each situation in which there is a possible threat to human security, but rather that we want better account to be taken of this important element.

With regard to this broad agenda, it is also important that, thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon – and let us hope and pray that, on 12 June, Ireland will vote in favour of this Treaty, which is what we are assuming – the European Union will be able to work with a broad agenda, because the new High Representative, who must be called as such because of my own country, will also be Vice-President of the European Commission and will therefore coordinate this broad agenda effectively.

Finally, I have one further observation regarding the United States. There are to be elections, and we do not know who the two candidates will be. In any case, it is clear that with whomever it may be – and I hope of course that it is Barack Obama – it will be easier to cooperate on a number of security issues. A particular example is the issue of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. John McCain has had interesting things to say on this subject. Perhaps, at the end of the year, it will be time to present further initiatives, new agreements: with regard to the multilateralisation of the nuclear fuel cycle, for example. I hope that the High Representative is willing to make efforts to achieve this.

  István Szent-Iványi (ALDE ). – (HU) Mr President, High Representative, Commissioner, firstly I would like to congratulate Mr Saryusz-Wolski and Mr Kuhne on their comprehensive reports; they have done some outstanding work. One of the most important findings of Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report is that the stability of the Western Balkans is the European Union’s number-one priority today. I completely agree with this.

In the case of Kosovo, what is at stake is no less than the credibility of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The antecedents are not too encouraging: although all the Member States have supported the Ahtisaari plan, they have still not agreed on whether to recognise Kosovo. But an even greater problem is the fact that there is also still no agreement on whether UNMIK’s powers should be handed over to EULEX. But if this does not happen, the European Union cannot fulfil its own pledges, and this undermines its credibility. Very important tasks for the EULEX mission are the creation of constitutionality, the introduction of a functioning market economy, the reinforcement of Kosovo’s multi-racial nature, and the building of trust between the peoples living there.

The European Union cannot leave Kosovo to its own devices. Our policy for the Western Balkans must rest on three pillars. Firstly, we must offer those countries a credible European perspective, we must examine the conditions strictly and we must bear witness to consistency. It would be a great mistake if we momentarily failed to give the conditions political consideration or if we inconsistently offered concessions to countries that do not cooperate with us – concessions that we do not give to those that do cooperate. These things will certainly continue to threaten the credibility of the European Union.

The European Union wants to play a global role, and rightly so, but this will just be wishful thinking until it is capable of guaranteeing the possibility of peace, stability and progress in its own immediate vicinity. Thank you.

  President. − We are pleased to welcome to the official gallery the parliamentary delegations from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, along with representatives of the democratic opposition in Belarus.

The delegation from Georgia is led by the Speaker of Georgia’s Parliament, Mrs Burjanadze.

These delegations have come to Brussels to take part in the conference on the European Neighbourhood Policy to be held in the European Parliament today and tomorrow.

We warmly welcome them and are delighted to welcome them to this joint debate.

(Applause)

  President. − We will continue with the joint debate on the report (A6-0189/2008 ) by Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, on the 2006 annual report on the CFSP, and the report (A6-0186/2008 ) by Helmut Kuhne, on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and ESDP.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE ). – (FR) Mr President, it is a pleasure for me to speak before these delegations since we have such close ties with them. It is precisely on the South Caucasus, would you believe, High Commissioner, that I would like to focus my intervention. We heard the good news that you will be going to Georgia for a couple of days tomorrow. It was high time that this happened and I thank you for that. You will also be going to Abkhazia and on that point, you explained that the weekend might not be enough time to resolve the issue. If you manage to do it in a weekend, I will be the first to congratulate you. This is a hard task, we know, but the most important thing is that the European Union is engaging in it. In my opinion, this is almost a test of the maturity of EU foreign policy. We know that Russia, which is one of our partners, is now involved in the conflict. According to the UN report, Georgia has agreed to suspend UAV flights over Abkhazia. However, yesterday we learnt that Russia has deployed its military forces to supposedly build railways. If that is the case, I think it is too early to talk about peacekeeping forces.

This is therefore a difficult task. You said that you were going to support Georgia’s peace plan, so my question to you, High Commissioner, is this: are you also going to support, as part of this peace plan, the introduction of an Abkhaz-Georgian civil police force supervised by the EU or the OSCE? This would be a real step forward, and one that we have been waiting for from the EU for a long time in this conflict, since this is a neighbouring country. Therefore, the question that arises today, and which our fellow Members have just asked, is this: are we going to develop the Neighbourhood Policy as part of our foreign policy?

  Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka (UEN ). – (PL) Mr President, may I remind you that in last year’s report from the Council on the main aspects and basic choices of Common Foreign and Security Policy, Parliament expressed deep disquiet at the announcement by the then Russian President, Vladimir Putin, that Russia was withdrawing from further participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. Despite the express declaration by the European Parliament, the EU authorities took no serious action on this. In July 2007, however, the Russian State Duma unanimously passed an act suspending Russia’s participation in this Treaty.

There is no doubt that this fact is of fundamental importance for security in Europe, as Russia possesses the greatest conventional armed forces potential on our continent. This is why I believe that the matter of getting the Russian Federation to re-accede to this international agreement is an important priority. The authorities of the EU and its Member States should use all means available to them to bring this about, not least because in recent times Russian expenditure on arms has risen by 700%.

  Willy Meyer Pleite (GUE/NGL ). – (ES) Mr President, Mr El Baradei, who is not someone who can be accused of being radical, said at the last Munich Conference on Security Policy that a 1% reduction in arms expenditure could solve the hunger problems in the world.

The contribution that the European Union is making to achieving this goal is to ask the Member States for military expenditure to be increased, and as a result this civilisation has reached the immoral situation of having the highest arms expenditure in the world in 2006, more than in the Cold War: 17 times more than we spend on international cooperation.

I think that we are going along the wrong path. The militarisation of security has created a more unjust, more violent world. You might remember that we were told that the immorality of the invasion of Iraq was going to resolve the problem of the Middle East and reduce the price of oil. The evidence is conclusive. Ladies and gentlemen, I think that we are on the wrong track. We need to demilitarise security and go back to the old values of a Europe in which, in the midst of the Cold War, on foreign policy people like Willy Brandt and Olaf Palme were proposing the zero armament objective.

With regard to our link to North American security, it depends which administration we are talking about. Or have our principles and values been the same as those of the Bush administration? Do you recall the CIA flights, the torture in Guantanamo, the death penalty, and the systematic violation of human rights throughout the world?

No, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we need to move towards autonomous, denuclearised security, and a system that generates sufficient security to resolve the fundamental problems which, in addition to terrorism, are hunger, poverty and discrimination.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM ). – (SV) Mr President, today’s debate was a foretaste of what is to come if the Treaty of Lisbon is adopted. Increased militarisation, increased supranationality and increased costs for the EU at the expense of Member States’ independence. The EU is now to represent us all. The wishes of 27 states will become as of one. I therefore look on in amazement as the European Parliament – which claims to be the champion of democracy – chooses a federalist course without respecting either Ireland’s referendum or intergovernmental cooperation. The Treaty of Lisbon means a further step towards a common foreign minister, common military forces and a common intelligence service, in short, a common defence and foreign policy. Citizens of Ireland, you are the only ones who have been given the opportunity to halt this dangerous development. I urge to you to vote ‘no’ on 12 June, just as we should do in Parliament tomorrow.

  Roger Helmer (NI ). – Mr President, I have a question for you. How is it that the High Representative, Mr Solana, can come to this House and tell us a direct untruth? I sat here and heard him say that everyone wants a stronger European Union and a stronger CFSP. I represent 4.2 million people in the East Midlands of the United Kingdom. Not one of them has ever said that they want a stronger European Union or a stronger CFSP, though many have said to me they would like to see our country out of the European Union.

If you believe this is what the European people want, why will you not let them vote on the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty which are designed to deliver it? Have you forgotten that the French voted against it and the Dutch voted against it? Do you not know that 80% of my constituents want a referendum and, if they were given it, at least 80% of them would vote ‘no’?

The British people that I represent want trade and cooperation in Europe, but they are absolutely opposed to political union and a European army.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE ). – (ES) Mr President, cooperation between Parliament and the Council has significantly improved in recent years, as recognised in Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report, in particular thanks to the establishment of flexible mechanisms and the appearances by the President-in-Office of the Council, the High Representative and the Special Representatives.

However, the report also says, as the Chairman of my group, that this cooperation between Parliament and the Council could be improved, especially in terms of timing. The report by Mr Saryusz-Wolski, whom I would like to congratulate on his work, includes a specific initiative: establishing an interinstitutional agreement from the beginning of next year, so that, on the basis of the guidelines of the new Treaty, stable and dynamic criteria for cooperation can be established. High Representative, I would like to get an idea of your assessment of this proposal in the report.

Secondly, I would also like to thank the other rapporteur, Mr Kuhne, for his report on the European Security Strategy. I think that what we need here is a long-term strategy that will enable us to deal with the new shape of the threats that we face, which can be revised when circumstances change, and in any case every five years, coinciding with Parliament’s legislative periods.

There have been some very remarkable speeches. I do not think that it is a question of spending more, but while we have 3 parallel satellite systems – Mr von Wogau already referred to this today – 5 telecommunications systems, 23 armoured vehicle systems and 87 different arms programmes, we will not be able to continue to make progress along the line that we want to follow.

With the 27 Member States, the European Union has approximately 2 million soldiers, 10 000 tanks and 3 000 fighter planes. I think that this is a sufficiently large force for us to be able to take serious action.

However, we have additional problems with sending a battalion to conflicts such as in Chad, where the aim is not to wage war but to provide protection in crisis situations and mediate in conflict situations.

Therefore, Mr President, I think that we need to contribute and mobilise all of our resources so that the European Union, with all of the capacity that it has, does not continue to be utterly irrelevant on the international stage.

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to inform you that a delegation from the Japanese Parliament has arrived in the official gallery. We would like to extend a warm welcome to them. They are taking part in the 29th EP/Japan Interparliamentary Meeting that is being held in Brussels and Vienna from 2 to 6 June.

The Japanese delegation is led by Mr Taro Nakayama, a great friend of Europe, and is made up of seven members of the House of Representatives and two members of the House of Councillors.

This Interparliamentary Meeting has focused on climate change in order to promote a common approach based around the application of the Kyoto Protocol and what will come after it.

We are very happy with this fruitful, stable and continued cooperation with Japan, a country with which we share the basic values of democracy, respect for human rights and the principle of multilateral cooperation. Therefore, welcome to our Japanese friends!

(Applause)

  President. − We will continue with the joint debate on the report (A6-0189/2008 ) by Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, on the 2006 annual report on the CFSP, and the report (A6-0186/2008 ) by Helmut Kuhne, on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and ESDP.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE ). – (PT) I should like to congratulate Mr Kuhne on his excellent report and in particular for the insistence on introducing the Human Security concept in combination with the principle of the responsibility to protect – a concept which Mr Solana has also upheld here.

These have to be the twin pillars behind a European approach to crisis management missions. On the one hand, deciding to intervene in a country under the ESDP must be based on an interpretation of the UN Charter that emphasises the responsibility to protect: the obligation to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

On the other hand, if the Union finds itself involved in a crisis requiring the use of military means, it is essential for the use of force to be guided by the doctrine of human security. This would mean that European troops would have to focus their efforts on setting up safe havens for non-combatant civilian populations, much more than on destroying the enemy with a view to military victory.

These two principles provide Europe with a coherent crisis management strategy at the beginning of the 21st century. Amendment 1 by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament therefore reflects the moral, legal and operational demands we are facing in Afghanistan, Chad and Lebanon and that we will face in the future.

For these reasons, I find it regrettable that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left rejected this amendment. This reactionary alliance insists on turning a blind eye to the primacy of human rights – a concept that would reinforce the legitimacy of and popular support for ESDP missions.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE ). – Mr President, there are, I fear, two problems with the debate this afternoon. The first is the claptrap that we hear from the far right about the Treaty of Lisbon. The second is that there is a certain complacency about all those, including myself, who strongly defend the Common Foreign, Security and Defence Policy. The purpose of a grand European security strategy is not to be admired, but to be followed, and too often the Council and the Member States have failed to follow their excellent strategy.

The UK and France have failed to deliver the promises of the St Malo Agreement. Certain others have insisted on a miserly and self-defeating policy that military costs should lie where they fall. What is the point of such a policy when the objective is to spread the burden? The fact is that only 20% of our armed forces can actually fight. Several of the ESDP missions are impoverished. The absence of a European HQ for the ESDP fragments commands and impairs the pooling of resources.

The sad problem is that we too often fail to learn from our mistakes, and simply tweaking the security strategy will not make the difference.

  Mario Borghezio (UEN ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard the CFSP programme, but it appears a little laughable coming from a Europe that cannot even manage to control its own external borders that are breached every day by thousands of illegal immigrants, traffickers and mafia members. A security policy without a basis – if there is one, Mr Solana, please tell us what this basis is!

The reports continually mention climate change, but the danger of the possibility of military attacks, terrorist attacks of a biological or even nuclear nature is ignored, even though this danger is far more serious and perhaps real, in view of the threats voiced by Islamist terrorists.

Europe is weak in terms of political conclusions. Look at the Black Sea, for example, which is a kind of chess-board on which there is no European policy. This is despite the fact that upon this chess-board our energy future and our security future is decided. Where is Europe’s political approach on this chess-board?

The Lisbon Treaty will not offer anything more than the little that has been achieved: the lack of perspectives of a Europe that has no geopolitical vision. Mr Solana, this is a void of 10 years of managing the foreign policy. Over those past 10 years all you have achieved is a void!

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL ). – (EL) Mr President, the two reports clearly present the escalation of the EU’s aggressiveness and imperialist plans. They set out a series of priorities for 2008, the goal of which is the economic, political and military advancement of European capital in the world. The EU also aims to plunder peoples and countries, either independently or, where that is not possible, with the assistance of the USA and ΝΑΤΟ.

In the first report, one of the salient points is interference and starting wars under the statutory smokescreen of excuses such as the fight against terrorism and the ‘protection of human rights and democracy’. Paragraph 15, Mr Solana, contains the typical, unacceptable and dangerous distinction between democracies and non-democracies. Now who has given you the right to describe peoples as democratic or undemocratic? In this context you also use the new term ‘human security’ as a pretext for preventive wars.

Furthermore, both reports, especially the second one, promote the EU’s greater militarisation due to the new drive for Battle Groups and the creation of a permanent EU military force. This is being made possible through the development of Eurocorps, permanent structured cooperation, and adapting the armed forces of Member States to the EU’s aggressive plans. This follows in the footsteps of ΝΑΤΟ by escalating the EU budget’s contribution to weapons and military expenditure. Cooperation between the EU and ΝΑΤΟ is being stepped up under the guise of military missions, supposedly non-military police and legal forces. These are experts who in reality prepare and handle the EU’s military campaigns. You vaunt the 17 military missions carried out and call for more.

The EU you are building is a union of war, aggression and imperialism. For this reason, the people must go down the path of resistance, disobedience and insubordination.

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI ). – (PL) Mr President, we are talking today about a sphere of competence that has hitherto been reserved for sovereign European states. Today the apparition of EU foreign and security policy is becoming a reality as never before, especially following the introduction of the new Lisbon Euro-Constitution.

As a Polish Member, I do not want and cannot agree to Brussels rather than Warsaw deciding on Polish foreign policy, while German generals at military HQ outside Berlin or Brussels take care of our security. Nor do I want Polish soldiers with an EU flag on their uniforms to be acting on behalf of foreign interests in various places in Europe and the world.

Current trends and the now open structure of the single European state are unacceptable. Of course, you can trick your own peoples by not even asking them what they think about the construction of a super-EU, but sooner or later this project will crumble to dust.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE ). – Mr President, today’s message should be that the CFSP should more than ever be based on common European values. To the ever-increasing security challenges there is one convincing answer: solidarity and enhanced coordination of common foreign and security policies. Those value-based objectives should be seen as taking priority over bilateral relations and Javier Solana was right in telling us that what really matters is political will.

As for energy security, I would like to call on the Commission and the Council to take serious account of Parliament’s position from last September on foreign energy security, which also offers some institutional improvements.

This report also calls on the Commission to concentrate all its efforts on successfully completing the Nabucco pipeline. I think it is not a question of one or the other: we should build our own pipeline in practical terms and effectively.

Finally, it is high time to effectively address the new cyber-challenges, as the rapporteur, Mr Kuhne, mentioned. I would like to use the term ‘cyber-terrorism’. A year ago, one million computers from all over the world were mobilised to block government institutions and banks in Estonia. I think the European Parliament too has to prepare a concise stand on how to respond to the threats of the newest technologies, which up to now seem to surpass the progress achieved by the Lisbon Strategy.

  Adrian Severin (PSE ). – Mr President, I want to address a matter of principle, namely the neo-conservative tendencies of this House on the EU Foreign and Security Policy. Seemingly some of us believe that the substance of any foreign policy is dependent on the nature of the political regime pursuing it; therefore it looks as though our main objective has become the export of our political model. Unfortunately, the European Union has neither the decision-making mechanisms nor the means to promote effectively an interventionist policy.

We must change this approach, adopting realism as a base of our external action. This means: clearly defining the scope of our foreign policy in accordance with the common existential interests of European citizens; balancing the scope with the resources, while acknowledging that this world contains actors that are different from us and do not always necessarily share our values; learning to operate with them, and giving up narcissism to look for negotiations and cooperation with our opponents, and not only with our friends.

Certainly we should try to make as many as possible of our foreign interlocutors into our friends, but before doing that and while doing that I believe we have to learn to operate with those who are not like us. I believe that we could be more appealing through our means, through our behaviour in promoting our goals rather than by our targets, thus eventually promoting our model in the world.

  Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski (ALDE ). – (PL) Mr President, there are several aspects that we must consider while discussing the European Union’s common foreign policy today. The reports by Mr Kuhne and Mr Saryusz-Wolski are really very good, but there are a few elements that are lacking.

I would like to point out that we should devote greater attention to explaining European foreign policy, including its defence aspect, to the public. Our citizens, our public, are perfectly well aware of what comes from us, from the European Union – agricultural policy, policy on infrastructure – but they are never clear about European foreign and defence policy and what it is linked to. Let us not forget that at its inception the European Union was constituted around problems other than this.

It is also important to consider the Treaty of Lisbon, which will, I trust, enter into force as soon as possible and be the foundation for new EU actions, and to ensure that one of its outcomes is a set of instruments that are as efficient as possible. Many of the speakers here have dwelt mostly on military matters. Certainly Battle Groups and everything related to the European defence identity are very important, but it is of no less importance to discuss the model of European diplomacy along the lines of how that diplomatic service is to operate.

It is important that the report emphasises that EU foreign and defence policy is intertwined with a variety of very important areas of life in the European Union. It is important to emphasise that we are also introducing the ideas of a common energy policy and energy security as an element of our common European thought.

To conclude, it is important that we think of foreign and security policy as an extension of the area of security, stability and democracy. In this context I note with great approval the strong accent placed on both the Balkans and Georgia.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN ). – (PL) Mr President, the security of people living in Europe is one of the European Union’s most important tasks. If we take a clear look at Community policy in recent years we see that, beyond political actions, we are militarily lightweight. Some European countries, in pursuing their own ambitions, are trying to compete politically and militarily with NATO, of which they are members. Concentrating on setting up common Battle Groups, particularly extended commands, rather than professionalising selected units in individual Member States is a mistake. It is also a mistake to under-utilise existing NATO structures.

The Community’s strength ought to lie in strong national armies. The European Union must resolve conflicts in Europe that are currently frozen, not only by means of declarations, but also through real political actions. The recent problems in Georgia have been provoked in part by EU support for Kosovo.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE-DE ). – (ES) Mr President, the Saryusz-Wolski report, which we will adopt tomorrow, is a very complete report that covers practically all the regions of the world affected by the European Union’s foreign policy in a balanced way. As I have only two minutes I am just going to mention some of the horizontal aspects that the report rightly includes.

Today foreign policy cannot be explained solely from a geographical point of view. There are issues that have a global, horizontal aspect, and they are of such great importance that the main actors in the Union’s foreign policy should be involved in them. I am referring first of all to the fight against terrorism and organised crime. These are matters that the foreign and security policy should pay very particular attention to.

Another question of great importance is that of migration and the fight against illegal immigration. We need to secure the cooperation of the countries of origin and transit countries, and the Union should be resolutely involved through its external action. In short, if we want to build an area of security, freedom and justice in the European Union, the external dimension is fundamental, as the Saryusz-Wolski report says. This is something that cannot only be the responsibility of the Home Affairs Ministers or of the Commissioner for Justice.

Another priority horizontal aspect is energy security. Given the high level of external dependency of the Member States, we need to move towards a common foreign policy for the Union in the field of energy. In addition, due to the clearly global nature of climate change, we need external action by the Union in order to find an effective response to this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think it is essential to make progress on all these issues and for the Union’s foreign policy to form part of this. They are issues that concern citizens, and citizens think that the European Union should help to promote them effectively, as State sovereignty is shared precisely in order to tackle the challenges that transcend the individual States and are therefore global challenges.

Therefore, by making progress in these areas, the European Union will be able to better justify its existence and thus increase its legitimacy as far as public opinion and citizens are concerned.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE ). – Mr President, I congratulate both rapporteurs, and I agree on the importance of the Lisbon Treaty assessments whilst evaluating the CFSP report.

If we were to have had this discussion in ten days’ time, after the decisive referendum – and my belief is that Ireland will say ‘yes’ – the debate would have been even more concrete and optimistic.

Nowadays, when threats are on the rise and infiltrate from all sides, if the EU cannot speak with one voice, it is essential to speak at least in a coordinated and stronger manner. I agree completely with Mr Solana’s assessment.

It will not be easy to start negotiations on the EU-Russia agreement. After a delay of one and a half years there is a risk of losing a similar or even greater amount of time if we are not focused on the most fundamental issues. This is why 27 countries have to coordinate their interests, concentrating on those which are common and important for all. The alternative to the negotiations being delayed or failing is an amplification of Moscow’s bilateral talks with Rome or Vilnius, Berlin or Budapest, Paris or Sofia. This is not an attractive option, especially for the new States.

The response of the Commission and the Council was timely – given the threat of climate change – calling this a central issue. The European Parliament should continuously follow and scrutinise the way in which plans and measures are implemented to counter the threat.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE ). – (FI) Mr President, this report stresses the importance of human and civil rights, which is good. Trends in energy security are also seen as crucially important. It also disapproves of the way that third parties, mainly Russia, use energy as a political tool and Member States sign bilateral energy agreements without EU coordination.

The EU really needs to take a look in the mirror. Russia collaborates directly with EU Member States because the EU does not have any coherent or coordinated energy policy. It makes you wonder whether the Member States even want one. Russia’s role as an important EU energy partner, perhaps its most important, has to be recognised. In energy cooperation between Russia and the EU we need to be aiming for a situation where both sides win. I believe it is also possible to reach this win-win situation based on political will and far less prejudice.

An energy policy co-implemented by Russia and the EU should be based on cooperation, not confrontation. At present some circles, including a few in the EU, are trying to hamper cooperation by being confrontational. For a long time now Russia has wanted to be Europe’s equal partner. May it be so. We certainly know that Russia is not easy to negotiate with.

The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy needs to have greater influence in international politics. I am very much in favour of Parliament putting pressure on the Council to promote the idea that the EU should have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. As long as the EU does not have such a seat, it will be difficult to speak with one voice.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE ). – (SK) The document concerned is in essence based on the European Security Strategy adopted by the Council in December 2003, and on the May 2007 resolution on the common foreign and security policy. I appreciate the work done by the rapporteur, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who has given us a comprehensive and high-quality text on which to vote.

I would like to stress several aspects of European foreign policy which cannot be implemented without strategic cooperation with our strongest ally, the United States. This is adequately expressed by the EU-US Transatlantic Partnership Agreement, in which also includes the aspect of economic relations. This issue is closely connected with military cooperation as well, not only with the US but also within the framework of NATO. Of course it is necessary to clarify and say once and for all whether the security umbrella created by the radar system in Poland and the Czech Republic will serve and protect effectively common European interests, or whether it is just a unilateral initiative designed to protect against threats from Asia. I have in mind the conduct of Iran in the Middle East region in particular.

We all know that Iran provides military and financial support to Syria and in particular to the terrorist groups operating in the region, groups that pose a constant threat to stability and peace through Hezbollah operations in southern Lebanon and Syria. Iran makes no secret of its desire to achieve a hegemonic position and its military nuclear programme is meant to help it reach this goal. However, I must ask whether it is possible to refer in the external policy document under discussion today to the Lisbon Treaty, which occurs on a number of occasions, since the Treaty is not yet in force as the ratification process has not yet been completed by all the Member States. I have one more question: under what legal provision has the European Union sent the EULEX mission to Kosovo? Was it not, in fact, an ante legem act? I am sure that there is no UN resolution that would justify such a move.

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (PSE ). – Mr President, the world in which the EU is called upon to further its integration towards a truly common foreign policy gets more complex every day. The prospect of economic recession, fuelled by the current financial crisis and increasing energy costs, the unsatisfactory status of transatlantic relations and the increasing assertiveness of Russia, which confront Europe more and more with old-style geopolitical challenges for which it is no longer equipped, are only a reflection of the current international environment.

In this context, against the background of increasing EU dependence on Russian supplies, energy tends to become the litmus test for success or failure in achieving the aim of a common EU foreign policy, because it makes all the difference whether Europe agrees to create a single energy market and consequently approaches suppliers, primarily Russia, with one voice, or continues to preserve the current national divides and give priority to bilateral preferential supply contracts destined to satisfy its increasing energy needs. Today world politics is first and foremost about gas and oil.

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE ). – Mr President, I support the development of CFSP, including ESDP, and the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty to these policy areas. This is also the position of the Irish Government. These changes will enable the EU to develop its capabilities for conflict prevention and crisis management, while ensuring that any new arrangements are fully consistent with Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality.

To the fellow travellers of Sinn Fein who are propagating misinformation on the Lisbon Treaty, I say to you that there is a triple lock system in Ireland on the deployment of troops: first of all, there must be a UN decision; secondly, there must be a government decision; and thirdly, it must be approved by Dáil Éireann, the national parliament. This is not going to change after Lisbon.

The current UN-authorised EU mission in Chad, in which Ireland is playing a leading role, is a prime example of the EU’s activities in this area. As someone who has recently visited Chad and the EU peacekeeping mission base in the east of this country, I am convinced that this mission will provide security for the provision of humanitarian relief to hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons, as well as protection for humanitarian personnel in the field. This ESDP mission to Chad is the first time that a peacekeeping operation has been launched by the EU in almost perfect harmony with all stakeholders.

Other missions with Irish involvement have included police training in the Palestinian territories, monitoring of the peace process between rebels and government in Indonesia, and providing support to the police authorities in Bosnia.

There have been more than 20 such missions since 2003. There are increasing requests to the EU to provide assistance and support in these areas. The key point regarding the totality of these initiatives is that their purpose is to make EU peacekeeping and crisis management activities more effective.

From a national perspective, we retain a veto on any developments with which we disagree, and we retain the sovereign right to decide on participation in any crisis management mission in accordance with our own legislative requirements. This is one of the many reasons why Irish people should come out to vote ‘yes’ on 12 June.

  President. − Before we move on, I should like to welcome all our visitors to the visitors’ gallery, but especially a group from my own constituency in Yorkshire and the Humber.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE ). – (FR) Mr President, High Commissioner, I am addressing you directly to ask about the persecution suffered by Christians in Algeria. What steps has the European Union taken with regard to the persecution of Christians in a State with which we have close links? Religious freedom is enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also imposes an obligation on each State to ensure that these rights are respected. Algeria is a member of the United Nations, but it is ignoring this fundamental right. Christians are citizens in their own right; they have the same right to practise their religion as any other religious community. This is why I am imploring you, High Commissioner, to use all direct or indirect diplomatic channels to put an end to the persecution of Christians. The credibility of the European Union is also at stake here.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE ). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Solana, I believe that the debate has shown very clearly that the European Union can truly be a political union only under certain conditions. Firstly, only if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified and, secondly, only if there is an actual European Security and Defence Policy worthy of the name, that is, when it develops into something better. Then the European Union will have the opportunity to move from being a global payer towards becoming a global player.

There is no doubt that our initial efforts in Chad were not our finest hour, but it is a case study from which we as the European Union have been able to learn because, quite simply, the shortcomings became very obvious. This showed once again that the European Security and Defence Policy requires compatible systems and new and rapid mechanisms for making troops available. The time for debate is over; now is the time for us to act!

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE ). – (HU) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Kuhne on his excellent report. He is completely right that 2008 will be a defining year for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Not only because of the Lisbon Treaty, but also because Kosovo will be the greatest test of whether the EU will be ready to politicise Kosovo appropriately. Unfortunately, there is still no agreement between the UN and the EU, and unfortunately we have not prepared on an intellectual level either, since we have not learned the lessons from our presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

With regard to the second report, I consider the anti-Russian slant of Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report to be unfortunate. Russia may and must be criticised, but at the same time she is an unavoidable strategic partner, and the deepening of cooperation is a mutual interest. It is not because the Member States of the EU conclude bilateral agreements that there is no common energy policy, but because, since there is no common energy policy, there is nothing to which the interests of the Member States can be adjusted or with which they can be aligned, so the criticism of Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report is unacceptable. Thank you for your attention.

  Monika Beňová (PSE ). – (SK) Like others before me, I, too, want to express my thanks for the work done by Mr Saryusz-Wolski and Mr Kuhne, namely the balance they achieved between the social, legal and economic aspects in the report. I expect that in the future it will be very important for us to give more weight to, and be better prepared for, dealings with our two biggest partners: the United States and Russia. There is a new President in Russia. Soon there will be a new administration in the United States. Consequently, it will be quite right to focus precisely on these two countries in our common foreign policy.

Regarding the economic dimension, priority must be given to the need to ensure energy security in the European Union in particular. I trust that progress will be made in the negotiations with the Russian Federation on this issue. Since we are discussing our two partners here, let me say that it would help if we acted as an equal, and equally competent, partner in our relations with both parties, be it the United States or the Russian Federation, and if the policies were balanced. Finally, Mr President, I would like to say that I welcome the references to the Lisbon Treaty. By referring to it in the report we show that Parliament envisages its ratification and is fully behind it.

  Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL ). – (CS) Thank you, Mr President. Mr Solana had not been seen among us for quite some time and I was worried about his health. Now I can see that he is healthy and well, that following the Kosovo event he did not hang himself as Judas Iscariot did. This means that I can ask him whether he knew that Hasim Thaci and his pals had been trafficking in human organs of Serbian captives. Did he know this or not?

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN ). – (PL) Mr President, both rapporteurs have gained my full recognition. These are good documents. I would, however, like to draw attention to several matters linked to foreign and defence policy. I have in mind here our European potential in the following areas.

Demography – this potential is diminishing. Economic potential is not bad, but financial crises threaten us. Military potential – disunited, scattered – we can see how it is. Energy potential, potential in access to water and to food. We have spoken of other threats, to which I would like to add epidemiological threats and information security, for example. Foreign policy today should, in my view, include union with countries that are close to us in terms of civilisation, cooperation with all who wish to cooperate and a firm position with regard to the rest.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE-DE ). – (HU) 88 years ago today, the European superpowers made some decisions on security policy, in the Treaty of Trianon that ended the First World War, that ignored the rights of national minorities, or only guaranteed them on paper. The Treaty of Paris after the Second World War did not solve the problems either. The question of security policy was reduced to a guarantee of the inviolability of borders. Many of the borders created then have ceased to be, and Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia do not exist.

The question of minorities remains. We Hungarians have ended up in eight countries, of which thus far only Slovenia has been able to resolve the rights of the Hungarian community in a reassuring way. According to the report, progress must be made in harmony with European standards in the interests of ensuring real protection for the rights of minorities.

But what sort of European standards? It would be good to press for what we expect from the Western Balkans within the EU itself. According to the Latin proverb, ‘If you want peace, prepare for war.’ Today, we want a secure Europe. The rights of minorities must be settled both within and outside the EU, using the instruments of regional and cultural autonomy that have been proven to work in the western half of Europe. Thank you.

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mr President, like Mr Solana before me, I also believe that this debate has demonstrated a broad consensus in the fundamental orientation of the European Foreign and Security Policy, and I am very glad about that.

I would like to comment briefly on three points. Firstly, to come back to the question of the definition of security: I do not believe that we are very far apart at all. None of the major global problems that we will have to tackle now and in the near future is unrelated to the dimension of security policy. Even the crisis in the financial markets has a security policy dimension, as do the food and commodities situations, not forgetting the usual concerns.

Nevertheless, there is no risk of our foreign policy becoming militarised or that the European Union will be militarised, because the military answer to these risks is an option only in the rarest of cases. If it is used at all, then it will usually only be to create a secure environment in which the real task can be achieved, and this will be of a political nature and concern civil society. However, we must be in a position to do both. We must be prepared for both, and that is exactly the direction that European policy is going in. Furthermore, we are uniquely predestined to deal with crises in the world because we have a wide range of instruments available to implement our strategies.

The European Union can draw not only on the CFSP and the ESDP, but also on the different Community instruments, such as the instruments for stability and development cooperation generally, as well as humanitarian aid and the Civil Protection Mechanism.

We have to ensure that we always select the correct instruments and that there will be logical interaction between the various parties involved. There can be no doubt that one of the most important advantages of the Treaty of Lisbon – when it enters into force – is that this harmonious, effective interaction is made a great deal easier.

In closing, let me say in summary that what really matters here is our shared political will to make use of our opportunities. The opportunities are there; all we have to do is want to use them. We must use them in such a way that we are all pulling together. The reality is that, in today’s circumstances, we have no choice. We simply cannot afford to act inconsistently or to apply funds inefficiently. Rather, we must pool and concentrate our resources and instruments if we want to achieve a common, credible and coherent EU foreign policy. Only then will we be equal to the challenge and able to meet the valid expectations of our citizens and partners.

Thank you very much.

  Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy . − Mr President, I would like to answer the two or three questions that have been addressed directly to me. Firstly, that of Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra.

(ES) Mr  Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, I will say yes to the two questions that you have asked me, but allow me to say that first of all we are going to see if the Treaty is adopted. Issues based on the ratification of the Treaty will have to wait and the agreements will probably have to come later.

(FR) Mrs Záborská, we are looking into this matter. Since Mrs Záborská is not here, I will save my answer until later.

At the Agency we are working very hard on interoperability: that is something that you asked about, and the answer is ‘yes’. As regards the other questions, I answered them when I spoke earlier.

I have taken careful note of all the speeches and I hope that, as time goes by – as we approach the moment of truth – after the ratification of the Treaty, we will be able together to put into practice some of the ideas that have been suggested here. Before they speak, I would again like to congratulate the two rapporteurs, as I said publicly before.

Finally, I would like to say that I agree completely with what Commissioner Verheugen said in his last speech, and I will not add any more to that.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, it is difficult to summarise this debate in a few words, but I am pleased with its content. The need for collaboration between Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Member States is the most important conclusion we can draw from this. Secondly, the content enjoys fairly broad agreement. Thirdly, we recognise that many extremely valuable things have already been accomplished. Finally, we emphasise the need to redouble our efforts.

Commissioner, Vice-President Verheugen quite rightly reminded us of the immense contribution of Community policies, as managed by the European Commission. I share his position, because integrated foreign policy would be incomplete without the results obtained with Community policies.

For the first time, I think that this is a debate in preparation for the appointment of the future ‘double-hatted’ EU Foreign Minister.

Which brings me to ask the question: what shall we do without this creative tension?

(FR) … in future, when there is only one institution. I agree with the idea that we need a stronger foreign policy for the institutions in terms of content. Energy security is the most frequently raised subject. The country or geographical location which has been mentioned most often seems to be Afghanistan, as if it were a test for the European Union and for the entire international community. There were several points of divergence. Without these differences to fuel our debates, these might be a bit boring. I therefore hope that future debates will be as lively and as rich as this one. However, we have reached an agreement on the key principles, which looks very promising, and I hope that the Council, the High Representative and the Commission, with the very modest contribution of Parliament of course, are able in future to build a foreign policy for the Union which is even stronger, greater and more ambitious.

  Helmut Kuhne, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, this final chance to speak gives me the opportunity to do something I did not have time to do earlier on – to thank Commissioner Verheugen and Mr Solana for the excellent cooperation with their staff, who were available for discussions and from whom I learnt a great deal. This had a very positive effect on the report.

I would also like to thank the all the committee members, particularly the committee chairman and rapporteur for the other report, Mr Saryusz-Wolski. We occasionally sent notes to each other, like schoolboys, when we had overlapping issues in our reports, in order to achieve the same wording. That also worked very well.

I would like to add three points:

First in English, since some of the speakers addressed the question of the Irish referendum.

On the legend of militarisation: my report contains a full list of arms control and disarmament proposals – a whole page of it. Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty retains the right of every Member State to stay away from EU missions, especially military missions. This right is not infringed by the Lisbon Treaty in any way. It was very interesting to hear self-proclaimed advocates of NATO expressing their fear for the independence of neutral Ireland as part of the ESDP. I think that was very interesting.

A final point, which Mr Pflüger mentioned, relates to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny: I do not know whether this was a deliberate misunderstanding, but the text that occurs in both Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report and my own does not preclude groups having access to confidential information. The formulation is an open one. Here in Parliament, we must first do our homework in order to develop some kind of negotiating position in relation to the Council. What level of security clearance do we want to grant to how many Members? It may well be that we say that all groups are granted a certain level, and some groups another level, and so on. We will have to develop that ourselves first, and neither of our proposals prevents the groups from participating in this.

I do not know whether this was a deliberate misunderstanding, or if the text was so unintelligible – I do not think it was – but we should first sit down together here in Parliament and develop our own negotiating position in relation to the Council.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 5 June 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE ), in writing. – (RO) I would like to stress the significance of this report and to thank the rapporteur for having included all my suggestions in the final text. In the context of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and of the future competences of the European Parliament, it is necessary to sum-up the operations of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and to draft its priority objectives for 2008 and 2009.

The reinforcement of the European Neighbourhood Policy must be a major objective for 2008. Regarding the quality of rapport on the Black Sea Region Cooperation issues, I would like to stress the importance of its development in the near future. If 2007 was the year of laying down EU policy regarding this space, 2008 must focus on the practical application of the Black Sea Synergy. It is also very important to mobilise all efforts for the successful and fastest possible implementation of the Nabucco energy project, as well as resolve the conflicts in the region.

Finally, the West Balkan countries and their proximity to the EU must also be a priority in EU Foreign Policy. Out of the series of issues that must be thoroughly monitored in this region, I would like to underline the need for effectively protecting the rights of minorities, including the rights of Romanian speakers.

  Adam Bielan (UEN ), in writing. – (PL) To begin with I would like to congratulate Mr Saryusz-Wolski on preparing a very good report. I would like to highlight a few of the ideas we encounter when reading this report. The most disturbing of these is the growing dependence of the EU on energy supplies from countries that are unstable and undemocratic. We find an absolute lack of coordination in the signing of bilateral energy agreements by Member States that threaten the interests of and place question marks over EU strategic projects. Actions of this type taken by certain Member States are significantly diluting the bargaining power of the European Union and its efforts to set up a common foreign policy.

I would like once again to emphasise the strategic significance of the Nabucco pipeline for the EU’s energy security, and to call on the European Commission and the Council to apply every effort to step up work on this project.

With reference to the two-day conference devoted to European Neighbourhood Policy that I am co-organising during the current Parliamentary session, I would like to stress the importance of actions aimed at reinforcing this policy. The continuation of unresolved conflicts in countries covered by the ENP constitutes a serious challenge to EU security.

To sum up, I feel that reinforcing an eastern neighbourhood policy and putting an end to the provocation of conflicts beyond our eastern border, along with ensuring energy security, should be the EU’s foreign policy priority.

  Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE ), in writing. – The report reflects correctly our opinions on the evolution of the CFSP in the future. The CFSP is a crucially important element in the EU’s foreign policy. I would like to welcome the improvements brought by the Lisbon Treaty regarding external actions. Its implementation would make the CFSP more efficient and more coherent. The new posts created by the Treaty could give a greater visibility to the EU, but I believe it is essential to define the different roles in order to ensure that their different functions contribute to the coherence and efficiency of the CFSP.

If we want the EU to be an active force for international peace and stability, we must have all the necessary tools and instruments at our disposal; but to achieve this, more political will from the Member States is needed.

The EU presence in the globe is widening, and we can find EU missions all over the world. By helping to build security and stability in the wider world, the EU is also helping to make life safer for her own people. This is the best way to defend its security and promote its values.

In my opinion these are steps in the right direction.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE ), in writing. – (PL) I support the report that has been presented. In my view, it is a balanced and non-confrontational document.

An evaluation of the EU’s foreign policy is particularly necessary at present, especially in the context of the changes proposed in this area by the Lisbon Treaty. I have no doubt that this Treaty, by buttressing the role of the High Representative, will enable a more far-sighted and long-term strategy to be practised in EU foreign policy. The fact that the European Union as a whole is based on common values means that these same values must be reflected in its common foreign and security policy. This is the only approach that will give the EU credibility in the international arena. The CFSP demands, on the one hand, political unity among the Member States and, on the other hand, respect for the principles of solidarity, especially in the building of new EU political strategies.

I therefore share the regret and concern expressed in the report at the lack of progress in building a common European energy policy. I am also unable to accept the fact that some Member States are concluding individual, bilateral agreements for energy supplies from Russia. This is significantly weakening the bargaining position of the European Union as a whole and its efforts to build a common energy policy. This is all the sadder inasmuch as not so very long ago these very States were criticising individual visa agreements with the United States, accusing Central European States that had concluded such agreements of weakening the common European visa policy.

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE ), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, the European Union is becoming a global player in the world arena, and the best proof of this is the geography of Community involvement. You only need to refer to the Council’s operational decisions of 2007 and early 2008 mentioned in Mr Kuhne’s report: the police mission in Afghanistan, the military operation in Chad, the reconfiguration of troops in Bosnia and the preparation for missions in Kosovo and Guinea-Bissau.

Unfortunately, the world geography of involvement is not going hand in hand with the elimination of deficiencies that have been evident for some time now, in the form of a lack of a civil peace corps in the EU, transport shortages and uneven commitment by individual countries.

In the light of information that has recently been received, a new dimension needs to be introduced into the debate on European security. I am talking about the security of European institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. The unmasking of terrorist groups that have chosen EU institutions as the target for their attacks means that the issue of security has ceased to be a theoretical one. It forces us to re-evaluate our current principles. We are aware that the European Parliament is by nature easily accessible, and it is difficult to find a golden mean between the openness of this institution and heightened security demands. This is, however, becoming a necessity, which should be reflected in the budget for 2009. This matter is not as weighty as other problems covered by the report, but it does deserve attention.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE ), in writing. – (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, effective foreign and security policy cannot be made by Member States individually. A bilateral approach on energy and foreign policy issues has a destructive influence on how seriously we are taken. It is unacceptable that the weight of the European Union in international relations has hitherto often been less than that of certain Member States. The European Union must speak to the world’s large countries, especially the Russian Federation, with one voice which proceeds from the common interest of all 27 Member States. Only then will we be viewed as an equal partner both in America and Asia.

I welcome the fact that Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report highlights strengthening European Neighbourhood Policy as the main objective for 2008. The European Neighbourhood Policy East Conference which is being held in the European Parliament today and tomorrow shows that we take our own objective seriously. Action in the fields of democratising our neighbours and resolving conflict is urgently needed for European Union security. We must help Moldova resolve the Transnistria conflict.

As the Chair of the Moldova delegation I must also note that the prospect of European Union membership is of great importance for both Moldova and Ukraine. That possibility is the driving force behind economic reforms and democratisation. It will of course take time to comply with the three Copenhagen criteria, although Moldova and Ukraine have shown themselves ready for European development. The fourth Copenhagen criterion, namely the EU’s capacity to absorb, should not in any circumstances be a barrier to the accession of these two European countries to the European Union. There is no question that enlargement must continue.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE-DE ), in writing. – (FI) My thanks go to the rapporteur for an excellent, comprehensive report. I agree with him that it is important for the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy to focus over the years to come more steadily on the development of structures and procedures to enable the Union to react faster and more effectively to international crises. Civil crisis management, peacekeeping and the protection of human rights are the cornerstones of the CFSP.

With the Treaty of Lisbon the EU’s external policy will have a new leading figure in the shape of the High Representative of the Union. The changes the Treaty will bring with it will be an opportunity for shaping a more effective, more coherent foreign and security policy. The EU needs to speak and act more consistently in the world arenas.

I hope, however, that in its future annual reports Parliament will adopt a firmer position on a more coherent, stronger role for the EU in the United Nations. The EU is an economic and political superpower. Over the years the Union has seen its importance grow internationally and its main mission now must be to build a global organisation which respects people and the environment.

The EU must invest time and energy in the Mediterranean, Baltic and Black Sea regions to develop economic cooperation, political stability and democracy there. More resources in the future will be needed to implement the Baltic Strategy, increase cohesion in the region and solve its environmental problems. Support for, and closer integration with, the Black Sea region as part of the EU’s Neighbourhood Policy will be a means of increasing political stability both in the EU and more widely in the Black Sea area.

  Nicolae Vlad Popa (PPE-DE ), in writing. – (RO) The Kuhne Report on the application of the European and PESA Security Strategy is well-structured, taking into account that it identifies real issues and offers possible solutions. I think that this kind of operational “checklist” approach will facilitate the monitoring of the progress. In terms of content, I would like to make the following notes:

1. They should mention the European College of Security and Defence which plays an important role in the development of a common agreement of PESA by means of the training provided on a strategic level, especially in the context in which the chairperson of SEDE, von Wogau, sent a letter addressed to SG/HR Solana in which he showed support for the activity of ESDC.

2. The declaration regarding EU-NATO relations could have comprised a stronger message, in light of the Declaration of Bucharest adopted at the NATO summit.

3. They could have mentioned the importance of the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO. The statement according to which “a stronger European Union will contribute to the common security” might be combined with the principle of indivisibility of the allies’ security, which is thus extended upon the EU.

  Toomas Savi (ALDE ), in writing. – The report of Mr Saryusz-Wolski reaffirms the European Union's commitment to the UN Millennium Development Goals, but this phrase in itself has become a little shallow, as it is being used lavishly in the EU development policy discourse, when very little progress is actually made and the MDGs are still beyond our reach.

Of all the Member States only Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden are contributing more than 0.7% of their GDP to Official Development Assistance, although the 0.7% target was adopted as early as October 24, 1970 within the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade.

I am convinced that ensuring the credibility of the EU as a global player should be a significant part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Fulfilling the commitments that we have taken would be an excellent start.

The EU and its Member States must transform the verbose declarations reaffirming their commitments into harmonised and collectively effective action. In my opinion this can only be achieved when pooling resources and establishing one single EU institution responsible for the accumulation, allocation and disbursement of the Official Development Assistance.

  Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL ), in writing. – (FI) With the Treaty of Lisbon the EU will become militarised, as the Common Foreign and Security Policy will incorporate an extra component in the shape of a common security and defence policy. It will make it harder for non-aligned countries to retain their non-aligned status. That will be the case when the Member States place themselves under an obligation to increase their military expenditure. That will be the case when a new military hard core is created for the EU: permanent, structural cooperation. That is to get under way during this French Presidency.

Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report is unfortunately in favour of the militarisation of the EU. The report’s emphasis on energy security is also very aggressive from Poland’s very one-sided view.

  President. − The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the next EU-United States summit.

  Dimitrij Rupel, President-in-Office of the Council . − Mr President, let me say something about the coming EU-US summit. I shall use my own language, if you will permit me.

(SL) Although the relationship between the European Union and the United States of America is essentially bilateral, the results of this relationship have global effects. The transatlantic partnership ceased to be merely economic long ago. The European Union and the United States cooperate closely both bilaterally and within international organisations on settling unresolved issues, including the most pressing regional issues, such as Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the Western Balkans.

As in all relationships, the European Union and the United States do, of course, sometimes have differences of opinion on certain issues, but we resolve them successfully with a constructive approach and mutual understanding. The European Union and the United States are an important, the most important, system which has a considerable effect on international relations. We have our differences but for the most part we work together as allies and friends. We have many common values and a historical link, throughout the twentieth century in fact, and in the end we stood together, side by side, during the end of the Cold War and the expansion of Euro-Atlantic links.

Since the European Union finds it more difficult to reach consensus than the US, relations are, naturally, not straightforward. However, consensus cannot always be reached within the United States either. If we look at the reports from the election campaign we can see that consensus is difficult to reach even within the same party. The European Union is united in diversity and, I should say, proud of it. That is also the starting point of the Lisbon Treaty which, I hope, will enter into force at the beginning of next year.

During our Presidency of the European Council Slovenia has devoted a great deal of attention to strengthening transatlantic relations, in particular the strategic dimension to them. I should point out that we have already held a large number of important meetings such as the troika meeting of EU and US foreign ministers, the meeting of political directors, and the EU-US ministerial troika meeting on justice and home affairs; and in May a meeting between European and American legislators was also held in Ljubljana. However, the most important event in connection with transatlantic relations will be the EU-US Summit which Slovenia will host in Brdo pri Kranju on 10 June.

I am pleased to be able to say that we expect the event to be well prepared, and we have already done a great deal of work. At the summit we will also have an opportunity to explain the importance of the partnership between the European Union and the United States to the public at large and to demonstrate our common values, productive dialogue and compatible interests when dealing with urgent regional and global problems.

The summit will be divided into four parts, namely the meeting of the heads of state, the plenary session, and lunch, which will be followed by a press conference. The heads of state will discuss the most pressing regional issues such as the Middle East, the Balkans, Central Asia and so forth, the Caucasus, and Iran, while other regional issues will be discussed at the plenary session and at lunch. The talks will also touch upon other global issues, such as climate change, energy, the negotiations within the World Trade Organisation, development, health and security, and free trade and the free movement of persons.

At the plenary session, the summit will see the first presentation of the Progress Report of the Transatlantic Economic Council, which was established at the 2007 EU-US Summit in Washington and within which the European Parliament also plays an important role as an advisory body through the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue.

The Progress Report of the Transatlantic Economic Council meeting held in Brussels on 13 May will be presented by the Council co-chairs, the Assistant to the US President for International Economic Affairs, Daniel Price, and the Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry and Vice President of the European Commission, Günter Verheugen, who is present here today. The press conference following the talks will be an important part of the summit since it will provide an opportunity to send a positive message to the European and world public about progress in transatlantic relations and planned joint projects.

The document to be adopted at the summit has been the subject of many months of talks between the European Union and the United States. We are drawing up a declaration, to encompass the entire range of transatlantic cooperation. Among other matters, it will touch upon regional issues, global security, transatlantic economic partnership, and global challenges, including climate change and energy. Our intention and the Presidency’s objective is to draw up a brief and concise document with a firm political message, and I hope that we will succeed in doing so.

Even with regard to climate change, on which views differ, we have found, I hope, a compromise solution. The proposed brief and factual text on climate change retains the most important objectives of the European Union and at the same time takes account of the views of the United States – I will not repeat matters which are well known to this Parliament. The declaration is being adjusted in the Transatlantic Relations Working Party – COTRA – and the progress of the talks has also been presented at the Political and Security Committee on 20 May, at the meeting of the Permanent Representatives of the Member States to the European Union at COREPER on 21 May, and at the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) last week, on 26 May.

We are endeavouring to set a the date for the signing of the Air Safety Agreement – adjustment of which is now in its final stage – and we would like to be able to sign it at least by the end of our Presidency, that is to say by the end of June. Furthermore, we support the earliest possible establishment of ‘open skies’, which will represent further liberalisation of transatlantic air transport and a new stage in relations between the European Union and the United States which will benefit people on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Slovenian Presidency is aware of the fact that some Member States have still not been included in the Visa Waiver Programme, which enables visa-free travel to the United States. We have devoted a great deal of attention to this matter in all contacts with the United States and in our preparations for the summit. The Slovenian Presidency has reached a compromise whereby the Member States of the European Union will enter into bilateral arrangements other than where matters for which the Commission is responsible are involved.

Ladies and gentlemen, I assure you that the Slovenian Presidency will invest a great deal of energy in its preparations for the summit and therefore I am convinced that we will be able to deem the summit in Slovenia a success.

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is today an important, valued partner of many countries. In an increasingly multipolar world, we have entered into strategic partnerships with our most important partners. However, we have more in common with the United States than with all the European Union’s other strategic partners. We share a major part of the responsibility for a fairer world, in which we all share in the prosperity and in which our security is solidly anchored politically, economically, socially, ecologically and also militarily.

This partnership is as ambitious as it is hard work. It requires us Europeans to demonstrate more solidarity in the international arena, but it also requires a rethink on the part of our American friends, as it requires them to accept that the role of leadership in the world must be shared. The situation calls for an openness that amounts to more than simplistic pro-European or pro-American, anti-European or anti-American reactions.

What we need is a broad awareness that there is not much that divides us, but a great deal more that connects us. A range of important issues will be discussed at the EU-US Summit. In the area of foreign policy, the discussion will focus on cooperation between the EU and the United States in the Western Balkans, especially Kosovo, and in the Middle East. Also on the agenda is a discussion on how we will work together to tackle climate change. This is a difficult topic on which the EU and the United States are still very far apart.

Nevertheless, the political debate in the United States has changed considerably, and it is moving in our direction. Our European goal is to achieve an ambitious, substantial agreement for the period after 2012 within the framework of the global negotiation process under the umbrella of the United Nations. It should be an agreement on which we have the world’s most important industrialised nation, the United States of America, on board.

Energy policy is also on the agenda. We want to push ahead with cooperation in science and technology and at the same time, we need constructive, open dialogue with our traditional and potential energy suppliers. It would be sensible for us to exchange experiences in a transatlantic context.

Our cooperation in the fight against international terrorism became a key joint concern on 11 September 2001, if not before. We want to improve the opportunities to exchange personal information for the purposes of tracing wanted persons. However, this presupposes that we develop and observe joint principles for data protection.

It was inevitable that visa freedom would be a topic at this summit. Last year, the reform of the US visa waiver programme opened the way to finding a solution. The Member States and the Commission are working hand in hand on this – I am delighted to be able to say this – with the Commission concentrating on the Community competences.

I must state quite clearly that, politically, it is incomprehensible that we Europeans, who are united under the Schengen system, are treated differently when we enter our most important partner country. Therefore, we will remind the President of the United States of the promise he made to lift the requirement for a visa.

Let me now turn to economic relations, which the President-in-Office has commented on. The creation last year of the Transatlantic Economic Council, the TEC, brought into being a political instrument to drive forward transatlantic economic integration. This economic growth is the heart of the global economy. It is the centre of gravity for trade and investment worldwide and will remain so for many years to come. Therefore, we are determined to use the TEC to find solutions to questions that have remained open for years – some of them for 10, 15 or even 20 years – and which represent significant barriers to transatlantic trade.

The ‘report card’ after the first year is good. We successfully tackled the first, difficult questions. Above all, we have managed to create a spirit of cooperation and mutual trust such as we have not known before. I am glad that we can count on the full support of the European Parliament, which is involved in every phase of this cooperation. We have good working relationships with all existing transatlantic dialogue partners and I am also thankful for the support of the Council, which will continue to be important in the future too.

There are a number of tangible results: we have moved forward as regards the product safety of imported goods; we have gained acceptance of European financial reporting standards by the United States; we have a common point of view on the promotion of an open environment for global investment, on which the summit will also issue a statement. We are already cooperating more closely on proposed legislation and we want to pursue common European-US standards, so that we do not have to compete against each other with our standards on the world’s markets.

We are a significant step closer to mutual recognition of safety regulations for electric appliances, something we Europeans have been asking the Americans for for many years. The Americans have reopened that particular file, something we did not expect to happen so soon. We have started to coordinate our economic policy interests towards third countries and in the international context.

As yet there is no breakthrough with regard to the 100% scanning of freight containers. This is very worrying. I would therefore ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to make good use of your contacts in Congress, because this was a decision by the US Congress, not the US Government, which is why my efforts to find a solution in talks with the US Government are not very promising. Congress must act; the Government cannot. I hope that your contacts in Congress will help us here.

The Commission has presented two proposals in connection with the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council, relating to the import ban on American poultry. We propose lifting this ban on poultry imports. It is not legally or scientifically tenable. I realise that the debate about this has sometimes been very emotional, obviously without full knowledge of the background and circumstances. I would ask everyone who wants to say something about this topic to inform themselves fully first.

Besides, it is a question that was arbitrarily withdrawn from parliamentary debate for many years, as I have discovered. We must not allow protectionism to put the case, nor should we take the arrogant position that our solutions are the only good ones for consumers and that the way other people do things is automatically bad. It may well be the case that something different is not worse than what we do. This has to be assessed on a case by case basis. Just because something is different does not mean that it is not as good.

If we do not solve this problem, which is basically a very minor problem, but one that is deeply significant for the Americans, we will not have even the remotest chance – and I say this in all seriousness – of bringing the major agricultural policy topics we want to discuss with the Americans to the negotiating table. For example, we will get nowhere with the requests we want to make of the Americans in the area of agriculture. I am directing this remark to the European Agriculture Ministers, who thought it appropriate to say no to this initiative before they had even looked at it. They have caused themselves great harm.

I have no illusions: all the issues that the Transatlantic Economic Council deals with are difficult and nothing will get done quickly. However, with the necessary wisdom and farsightedness, all these issues can be resolved on both sides. This instrument is too important, and too valuable, to squander. Furthermore, in the light of the stalled Doha negotiations, its value cannot be underestimated even though we have every interest in seeing the world trade round through to a successful conclusion, with a result that is beneficial to all involved.

At the summit, we will achieve a speedy conclusion to negotiations on the second stage of the Air Transport Agreement, which will give the transatlantic economy an additional boost.

Ladies and gentlemen, overall, the way relations between the EU and the Unites States are developing is very pleasing. Regardless of the opposing paths that inevitably occur, our relations are constructive and future-oriented. We hope that this summit will send a further strong signal that we are partners who are committed to taking responsibility for the transatlantic region and resolving global issues, regardless of the different legislative periods and different terms of office applicable to the Administration, the Council, Parliament and the Commission.

I would be sincerely grateful if the European Parliament would continue to support and promote this process energetically.

  James Elles, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group . – Mr President, a few days ago we were with the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue in Ljubljana and we very much welcomed the Slovenian Presidency’s warm reception there.

The debates we had with our congressional colleagues showed just how broad an agenda has now developed between the US Congress and the European Parliament in this transatlantic framework: economic issues, which we heard the Commissioner talk about just now, political issues, which could also be economic, like climate change, but also difficult issues like Afghanistan and the broader security concept. Therefore, we welcome this debate before the EU-US summit next week.

I have three short reflections to give to this debate. Firstly, when you have such a broad agenda of so many different issues, which is of quite a different nature from that of ten years ago, we surely need to begin to build some form of common approach to a security dimension, a security strategy. We had a debate just now on the European security strategy. We need to begin to match that up with US security strategy in the longer term so that we can then approach these problems on a broader base together.

Secondly, there is a real absence of the legislators’ dialogue in this debate. We are put to one side, as it were, in Ljubljana and then the summit meets in Ljubljana two weeks hence. It looks rather like a 19th century organisation, because there is no real contact between the administrations’ and the legislators’ dialogues. Surely, as this motion for a resolution indicates, we now need to plan for a transatlantic assembly where you can get the main legislators on both sides of the Atlantic to talk with each other and come to common initiatives together.

My last point is a personal reflection: as we have the EU, US and NATO all coming to deal with these issues together, perhaps it would be an idea at the NATO summit in Kehl, to be held in the spring of 2009, for the EU-US summit to meet in the margins of the NATO summit to show that NATO, the EU and the US are handling these problems jointly.

  Jan Marinus Wiersma, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Mr President, on behalf of my group, I should like to thank the Minister and the Commissioner for their introductory speeches. I share the conclusion of Commissioner Verheugen that the atmosphere is positive, better that it was a few years ago. Of course, we expect even more improvement when a new government takes office early next year. I believe that both candidates want change, want greater investment on the part of the United States in international cooperation and multilateral institutions. That too offers prospects for even greater improvement in the relations between the European Union and the United States. You will forgive me for having a preference for one of the two candidates, of course, and today it has become clear who those candidates will be.

There are a number of problems that do remain on the agenda, however. I shall not discuss economic cooperation, as Commissioner Verheugen has already touched upon that point and we had an extensive debate on the issue a few weeks ago. One point that I should like to raise once again, as I did in the previous debate, is the issue of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is time for a new initiative. I believe that the United States should make a gesture, for example by signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty; however, there are new opportunities regarding the conclusion of agreements on the multilateralisation of the nuclear fuel cycle. I am happy with what has already been said by presidential candidate John McCain on the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, an indication that he is taking this agenda seriously.

The second point is the issue of the anti-missile defence system. My colleague Mr Rouček will say more on the topic, which continues to be important to us, as we believe that this cannot be unilaterally regulated in the bilateral negotiations under way with a number of NATO member states. It is a European problem; it affects the security situation in Europe. At the very least, it should have been discussed multilaterally within the competent European bodies. I share the criticism regarding the lack of agreement thus far in relation to visas and the Visa Waiver Program. We believe of course that all EU Member States, especially the states that form the Schengen area, should be fully incorporated into the programme. Now that the Commission is able to enter into negotiations itself, I hope that it will make headway in this regard.

One further observation by way of conclusion: we continue to be dissatisfied with American responses to our complaints regarding the practices of the CIA in relation to extraordinary renditions and the continued existence of Guantánamo. For once, putting an end to these continues to form an important item on the agenda of the joint consultation.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, on behalf of the ALDE Group . – (FI) Mr President, it is important to have an open discussion forum and cooperation between the United States of America and the European Union. Commissioner Verheugen also emphasised the importance of cooperation with Congress. I too had an opportunity about a week ago to attend a meeting of the Delegation of the European Commission to the United States. This sort of contact is important. There, as obviously elsewhere, there are open discussions on difficult questions and each side certainly tries to promote the issues which relate to its own part of the world. What is clearly evident from these talks is that when the United States tries to make a case for security issues, it is very often a case of economic and trade protectionism.

I agree totally with Mr Wiersma and I too regret that the EU Member States have not been treated fairly and equally when it comes to the matter of visas. When the US administration changes, hopefully the EU might speak to the United States with one voice about this, and then the Member States might all be treated in exactly the same way.

Personally and finally, I would like to say that we here in Europe and everyone the world over have been following the first round of the battle for the White House. In fact, it definitely gives an excellent picture of the US democratic machine. The EU could do well to take a look in the mirror here. We talk here about selections for top EU positions. There is no open forum, let alone any very democratic process, while these posts are being handed out prior to elections. Could you imagine the most important administrative and political posts being allocated in the United States before the elections, as goes on here in the EU? In other words, we definitely have a lesson to learn from the United States in many areas, at least in issues of democracy.

  Cem Özdemir, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we want good relations between the United States of America and the European Union. The prerequisite for this, however, is also that the European Union speaks with one voice. Challenges and crises in the Western Balkans, in the South Caucasus region, in the Middle East and in Afghanistan, the fight against terrorism now taking place in the media and the food crisis that is now apparent, issues of energy security, climate change, economic recession as well as issues of transparency and regulation on the financial markets – on all these issues we need one another and we must work together. However, we also want to reinforce the parliamentary dimension by involving the US Congress and the European Parliament.

One point that is supremely important to our citizens is – and I say this in full awareness as someone who considers himself transatlantic – the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison and all the other secret prisons in the world. It is important that we explain to our American friends that the remaining prisoners must either be legitimately charged or else released and, if necessary, appropriately compensated. We too can make a contribution, however, by accepting the Uighur prisoners into the European Union, thereby also helping to end this scandal as quickly as possible.

Another point that is important for the collective reputation of our common democratic values is that on the one hand we are in agreement that there is a terrorist threat, but that on the other hand we also have to highlight the fact that this debate is also taking place with constitutional funds. This is precisely not the case with the current practice of lists of terrorist organisations both in the European Union as well as in the United States. This issue must therefore also be put to the test as a matter of urgency. I would once again highlight the fact that terrorism and organised crime have to be tackled on the basis of fundamental rights and common constitutional principles. This also applies to the exchange of personal data between the United States and the European Union.

Another important point is ultimately the issue of climate change, because many aspects are affected, from food security via energy to water supplies. This item therefore has to be given high priority at the summit. Both partners should agree on a common approach to containing climate change. It must be our aim to limit the increase in temperature to a maximum of two degrees with regard to pre-industrial values. We are demanding that the industrialised countries fulfil their responsibility.

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group . – Mr President, I would like to thank President-in-Office Dimitrij Rupel and Commissioner Verheugen for their introduction to this debate. In many ways what we see happening is a convergence of ideals and goals between the US and the European Union. Too often we focus on that which divides us. By geography we are divided by the Atlantic Ocean, but what unites us is what is within our hearts and minds, within our value systems and our beliefs as regards democratic control and the promoting of democratic institutions across the world.

We need to really focus on the core elements of what kind of a vision the US and the European Union can give to the world in the 21st century. Obviously my colleagues have mentioned many of the challenges that face us, whether it be climate change, the development goals or whatever else. But first and foremost, we must focus on bringing about peace and stability within regions and within areas.

That is why it is quite appropriate that the next summit between the EU and US will take place in Ljubljana, because in Ljubljana we can look to the west and we can see that there is stability and peace in the European Union. We can look to the south-east and see potential fracture and potential danger in the Western Balkans. We can look further east and see potential danger and potential fracture with what is happening in the Middle East. That is why I think it is important that, when we do meet and discuss issues, while of course the agendas are going to be wide-ranging, by necessity they must focus on key and core elements.

Those key and core elements in my opinion should be based on: ensuring that the Quartet continues its work with regard to the Middle East peace process; ensuring that the agreement in Doha of the parties in Lebanon with regard to the Lebanese situation is encouraged and supported; guaranteeing that Kosovo and other areas within the Western Balkans are given the security guarantees that they require to develop their democracies into a stable and peaceful future. But most important of all is for us to come together to give leadership to the rest of the world, in particular in the area of climate change, energy and food. Because the most striking issue now facing so many countries around the world, not just developing countries but developed countries, is the price of food and the difficulties that will create.

Collectively the US and the EU can maintain a strong position, but can also give great leadership for the future.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, will you set out the specific points on which you disagree?

The European Parliament is calling for Guantanamo to be closed and there have recently been revelations about prison ships, which quite possibly have called even at European harbours. Will you say something about this to the Americans or will you back the demands of US citizens on the issue? Will you say something to them to stop them undermining the global agreement on climate change, to urge them to abandon their unilateral approach to biofuels and to make a slight compromise so as to tackle the present food crisis that is pushing up food prices? Mr Verheugen, since you have played a leading role in lifting the ban on chlorinated chicken, which has been in place in the EU since 1997, let me tell you that all of us who disagree with you – and there are many of us – do so not through ignorance but because we consider protecting public health to be more important than commercial interests. Twenty-one of the 27 Member States disagree with you, as do a unanimous European Parliament and the relevant parliamentary committee; there are strong objections even within the Commission. This is not something to be taken lightly, Mr Verheugen; you must present some arguments.

  Philip Claeys (NI ). – (NL) Mr President, the partnership between the European Union and the United States is a cornerstone of the EU’s external policies, as the joint resolution rightly states. Such a partnership posits a number of self-evident agreements, such as the principle that we do not involve ourselves in the internal affairs of the other partner. I am sorry to say that, in latter years and recently also, our American partners have not always kept to this agreement. For example, the President and the State Department have repeatedly declared themselves openly in favour of Turkey’s accession to the European Union and have exerted pressure to this end. Such behaviour is unacceptable. This is like the European Council or the European Commission making efforts to achieve Mexico’s accession to or integration into the United States. Just because Turkey is a NATO member state does not mean that the country should also be able to join the European Union. NATO is important to the European Union, but it is not the same as the European Union. These are two different affairs, and the summit next week is a good opportunity to remind our partners of this in a friendly, yet resolute manner.

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE ). – (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I believe that it is perfectly clear, and it has also been clearly stated in the various speeches, that the European Union and the United States of America can together contribute as nobody else can towards peace and freedom in the world on the basis of their values.

We do, however, know that we sometimes have different views. If we also find American unilateralism very unpleasant at times, this unilateralism is also partly rooted in our own weakness. That is why a better European policy in relation to the United States, inner strength and one voice in foreign and security policy are conditions for creating a genuine partnership. With the Transatlantic Economic Council we now have an instrument for consolidating our common interests in a specific area.

For this reason it makes me very sad that things are already threatening to collapse on the chicken issue, that the President of the United States is having to make telephone calls on account of the chicken issue and that we are not showing a certain willingness to compromise on this issue either. We have to consider whether or not a lot of things have been exaggerated here and we are therefore in a position to create a basis for the development of a transatlantic market, enabling us to determine our common interests in the world, implement standards and – as Mr Elles has rightly said – include the Parliaments in this. Commissioner Verheugen has already mentioned that legislation in many sectors is already affected, which is why the Parliaments on both sides have to be included pre-emptively in order to bring the situation under control and implement these standards together in the world.

If we were to succeed in this and if we are able to maintain this momentum beyond this year’s elections in the United States and next year’s elections in the European Union, we will perhaps have created the basis for understanding that climate change, organised crime, migration and much else can only be tackled together in the interests of a better world. This is why we should be working more closely together with our American friends.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

  Libor Rouček (PSE ). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in my speech I will mention one aspect of the relations between the European Union and the United States, and that is the US anti-missile shield system. In my home country, the Czech Republic, where a radar base is to be installed as part of this shield system, two thirds of citizens permanently oppose this plan. The Czech people are believe that the anti-missile shield does not concern only bilateral relations between the US and the Czech Republic or Poland but that the questions of the anti-missile shield and non-proliferation of weapons affect the security of Europe as a whole. I thus want to call on the Council once again to create, finally, a platform for the participation of all EU Member States in the debate on this issue. I also want to use this opportunity to call on the United States not to sign, at present, the treaties on the installation of their anti-missile shield elements in Europe. America and Europe are facing a number of far more pressing problems: the fight against terrorism, security of energy supply, global warming, Afghanistan and many others. Let us therefore work together (and I mean together, as partners) to find solutions to these problems. We can leave until later those issues that are not urgent and that currently divide us instead of uniting us.

  Sophia in ‘t Veld (ALDE ). – Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen has just made an appeal to the European Parliament to use its contacts with Congress on the issue of the 100% screening of containers. Very well, I think we are happy to oblige; but then, in return, I think this Parliament would like to be more closely involved in matters such as, for example, the framework for transatlantic data protection, because for the last year and a half that has been treated by civil servants behind closed doors, as if it were a mere technical matter rather than one relating to our civil liberties and our fundamental rights. This is not a matter for diplomats. It is time that the Commission and the Council brought this to the European Parliament.

Another matter concerns something that was announced the other day by the United States authorities – the electronic travel authorisation scheme. I would like to hear whether the Council and the Commission intend to raise this at the summit with the US. I get the impression that, by now, we have a patchwork of security measures that affect travellers – the electronic travel authorisation, PNR, API, biometric passports, fingerprints, entry-exit systems, automatic targeting system, visa, visa waiver – and the EU is just blindly copying all this. It is time that, instead, we started talking about a coherent, effective and proportional framework of security measures.

In this context, I would like to know whether the Commission and the Council intend to raise the following issues with the US authorities. They have announced that – I believe as of August – they will require air and vessel carriers to collect 10 fingerprints and facial scans of all travellers and to submit this information to the Department of Homeland Security within 24 hours. I will submit a parliamentary question on this, and I would like to know whether the Council and the Commission agree with me that carriers should not be carrying out law enforcement and security tasks, and whether they intend to intervene.

Finally, with regard to the visa waiver, I would like to highlight a specific issue. We have asked this a number of times and never got an answer: do you intend to raise the issue of the unacceptable travel ban to the United States for HIV patients?

  Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski (UEN ). – (PL) Mr President, not long ago the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which it called on the United States to abolish the visa requirement for citizens of all EU Member States and to respect the principles of reciprocity.

Citizens of the United States may travel freely to all EU countries, but the only people who do not have to apply for US visas are citizens of a few of the richest countries of the European Union. This shows an imbalance in the treatment of certain fully-fledged EU Member States. Unfortunately, this issue has not received adequate attention to date from EU institutions that often display excessive zeal in other matters. We are witnessing an odd situation in which – by way of an example – Polish citizens are still being treated as potential economic migrants, even though it is ages since their goal was the United States. They can, after all, work in EU countries that have opened up their labour markets to them. There are no economic and certainly no political reasons why they should not travel without visas to the United States.

We must hope that at the next EU-US Summit the EU countries will table this problem in a resolute manner and finally resolve it.

  Jana Bobošíková (NI ). – (CS) Mr President, given that Commissioner Verheugen was emphatically talking about prosperity, I expect the summit to look, first and foremost, for a way to curb the rising food prices. I expect a politically correct response to the fact that tens of millions of people will die from hunger this year, and a further hundred million will slide deeper into poverty. At the same time, milk in Europe is being poured down the drains right now, and rapeseed and sugar cane, now blooming in the fields, will be poured into vehicles’ fuel tanks. High subsidies and import tariffs make it more profitable to grow fuel rather than grain, although it is well known that the price of wheat would immediately fall by 10% and the price of corn by as much as 20% if the countries declared a moratorium on biofuels. Mr President, I believe that at the meeting in Ljubljana in a week’s time it will become quite clear whether the European Union and the United States are going to face up to their global responsibilities or are just going to continue to talk about them in a populist manner. Given that they are facing the (literally) deadly results of the existing agricultural policies, they should abolish, as quickly as possible, the nonsensical agricultural subsidies, quotas and customs tariffs, and stop promoting biofuels.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE ). – (PL) Mr President, we are talking to the European Union’s most important partner; we have differences of opinion on many points, but the fact is that we are closer to the United States than we are to any other overseas country. At the same time, however, in global terms our approach to several key matters affecting our entire planet differs.

The European Union has made the battle against global warming a banner for its activities – these are the preferences of all Presidencies, past and future. The United States agrees that above all it is human activities that are leading to changes in climate, but it does not want to take upon itself the burden of combating climate change. On the contrary, we, the European Union, have adopted a very fierce programme to limit emissions. This will be a programme of exceptional harshness for our economy. We have decided to do this because we want others to join us. This is our aim, because we cannot save the planet by ourselves.

The United States is pretty much the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Persuading this largest emitter to take on common obligations may lead to a global understanding in Poznań and Copenhagen, and it is only when we succeed in reaching such an understanding that our programme to limit emissions will not have been squandered. I therefore think that discussion with the United States on this subject and the presentation of our projects, and persuading them to act jointly with us in the international arena during the next climate convention sessions, is one of the most important, perhaps the single most important point for the European Union today.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE ). – (PT) The last EU-United States summit in the Bush era will take place on 10 June. That era has been forever tainted by the illegal invasion of Iraq and the ignominy of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the secret prisons. We will breathe a sigh of relief after eight years of going backwards. Eight wasted years in terms of what could have been an effective fight against terrorism compatible with the values of democracy and human rights. Wasted years in terms of the quest for peace in the Middle East, wasted in terms of the fight against organised crime and in terms of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.

Yet we know that Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party candidate and that hope is returning. Obama has pledged his support for strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has even upheld the objective of complete nuclear disarmament. This has already had a knock-on effect on his Republican opponent, Senator McCain, who has aligned his position with Obama’s and who has added that he supports the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. This proves that there is a critical mass in the United States that is ready for a change of strategy.

Europe must approach the new Administration as early as possible with regard to drawing up joint strategies for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and for all frameworks in which global security and, especially, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are at stake, including negotiations with Iran. With this in mind, contacts between Members of the European Parliament and of the US Congress are of the utmost importance and should be stepped up right away.

Mr President, the US leadership is no longer enough to combat today’s threats and to prevent new ones in the future. It is, however, still indispensable. We are confident that President Obama – and I hope it is him – will be up to the challenge and that Europe will be able to use every opportunity to contribute towards a lasting strengthening of the multilateral system.

  Dariusz Maciej Grabowski (UEN ). – (PL) Mr President, problems are increasing globally. One example is the deteriorating economic situation. A second is political utilisation of access to raw materials and the rise in their prices, including the rise in food prices. A third is terrorism. A fourth is local armed conflicts. No single State has the power to solve these problems, so dialogue and cooperation are necessary between the EU and the United States.

There is another side to this coin, however, and that is economic and political rivalry between the European Union and the United States. Therefore, in the most important matters, what is needed is appropriate arrangements to prevent this rivalry from being divisive. Arrangements are needed particularly in economic matters. The world should not be hostage to speculative capital and raw material monopolies. Europe must not stand with Al Gore as a proponent of the idea of global warming at the cost of its own businesses.

In view of the forthcoming change of President in the United States, Europe should make its own political priorities and the proposals it has for their resolution very clear.

  Dushana Zdravkova (PPE-DE ). – (BG) Being a representative of a new EU Member State and a member of the Delegation for relations with the United States of America, I would like to speak about the important role of the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue which covered the meeting held in Ljubljana only a few days ago.

I would like to express my gratitude for the topics included on the agenda because they clearly showed that the challenges facing some new EU Member States were very much on the agenda of the European Union and its institutions, giving us a sense of security and protection of key interests.

However, what I have in mind, first and foremost, is the issue related to the widely publicized security measures. They include the visa arrangements, as well as the requirements for 100-percent cargo scanning.

On the one hand, these measures affect the free movement of the citizens of my country and primarily the opportunities for young people to have the same rights and chance which people of their age enjoy in other countries; on the other hand, they generate economic problems for countries like Bulgaria, which have relatively small ports and will have to shoulder the heavy financial burden of providing the new screening equipment.

The measures will make these ports give up the handling of freight that will be channelled to larger port facilities. This will definitely impair the economic interests of regions like the one I come from, i.e. the City of Varna, and the other Black Sea regions.

During the meetings held to discuss visa issues, I informed our U.S. colleagues from the U.S. Congress that the situation in Bulgaria was fundamentally different from what it used to be 10 or 15 years ago, when young people in large numbers went to the United States and, furthermore, rejection rates of visa applications were reduced. This is the reason for the beginning of a new dialogue between the two countries.

Still, I do believe that Bulgaria needs to remain loyal to the common EU policy and to insist on the application of measures to protect all citizens of the European Union on the basis of reciprocity. At the same time, our U.S. colleagues should understand that we all face common security problems which we have to resolve by working together rather than by putting obstacles to one another. Therefore I support the resolution and the upcoming meeting.

  Helmut Kuhne (PSE ). – (DE) Mr President, a fundamentally positive relationship with the United States does not preclude differences in interests and opinions. I believe that a partnership on equal terms is possible only on such a basis. Only in this way can we also convincingly counteract anti-Americanism.

For this reason we in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament are in favour of a direct dialogue on security policy with the United States on those issues in which the European Union has jurisdiction. I would put forward two examples of this: the credibility of Western values when combating terrorism and the subject of stabilisation and reconstruction.

For precisely these reasons we are against the EU’s open or hidden links to the US National Security Strategy, as we see them in one of the amendments put forward by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats to the report on security strategy, on which we shall be voting tomorrow, because it is perfectly clear that no President of the United States will ever accept that a third party, whether or not it is the EU, becomes a cosignatory to this National Security Strategy. Why should we therefore tie ourselves to this same thing with a blank cheque? This is not equal terms and we are therefore against positions such as these.

  Atanas Paparizov (PSE ). – (BG) Mr. President, I would like to voice my support for the proposed joint resolution and to touch upon two issues like in the course of the legislators’ dialogue in Ljubljana: climate changes and energy, where both parties, i.e. the United States and Europe, should cooperate to a greater extent.

I hope that more opportunities will emerge to this effect in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. I particularly rely on the legislative activities at the U.S. Congress enabling the Copenhagen Conference to achieve global solutions. Otherwise, countries like Bulgaria would be seriously affected by the loss of competitiveness of their products and exports if we were the only ones to implement the European Commission’s proposals on the climate change.

As far as the energy sector is concerned, our cooperation should not be confined only to clean technologies and the related fund but it should also cover nuclear energy that is apparently increasing its importance in the world, especially in countries like China and India. We can be partners in this field only if the European Union could incorporate nuclear energy issues more openly in its policies.

  Peter Skinner (PSE ). – Mr President, I would like to focus on three points. Firstly, I agree with the emphasis of the Commissioner: let us follow up on the transatlantic Economic Council and the work that we can do there. We need to show that we can take certain issues very seriously and can make the changes necessary to bring about the lifting of any unfortunate barriers, which are basic harbours for national protection. This includes poultry, and it is sad to hear a reflection in the House that we should not have that ban lifted.

Secondly, we need to promote the positive agenda as well as challenge each other over the difficult issues such as climate change. Finance is a very positive story to tell, and I hope that insurance will be added to the list of progress that has been made so far in this area.

Finally, the recent transatlantic dialogue in Ljubljana just got better. More was discussed and more was agreed, and like my colleagues I can agree we need to raise this now to the agreed level of the 1997 Houston Joint Declaration.

  Corina Creţu (PSE ). – Mr President, I wish to mention a few issues that I hope will be on the agenda of the summit on 10 June.

First, concerning Kosovo, it is obvious that it is in no one’s interest to have a new failed state in the Balkans, and therefore Romania has been participating for years in the efforts to stabilise the region. Our concerns deal mainly with organised crime, prostitution and trafficking in human beings, drugs and weapons, and I believe the new Kosovar authorities must increase their efforts to control these practices.

I also think it is very important to monitor closely how local culture is preserved, especially Orthodox monasteries in the area.

Another issue I would like to raise concerns visas for all European citizens travelling to the United States. I would like to thank Commissioner Verheugen and Minister Rupel for raising this issue. As you have seen here, there is very strong solidarity, irrespective of our political colour. I must say that I was very surprised that during the meeting in Ljubljana our colleagues from the Congress put all the responsibility for this issue on the Department of State while, at the same time, President Bush used to say that it is the full responsibility of the Congress. I hope you will finally find an answer during this summit in Ljubljana.

Finally, I should like to raise the issue of the price of food and poverty.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE ). – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, when the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection visited Washington in July 2007, I became aware of the importance of cooperation between the United States and the European Union.

I believe that common EU and US policies in the areas of customs tariffs, intellectual property, mutual recognition, mutual understanding and harmonisation of standards can lead to the creation of a new transatlantic trade area to the benefit of both entrepreneurs and consumers, on both sides of the Atlantic. Since the toys directive is being debated in Parliament at present, it would be very useful to find a common policy in regard to toy safety as well. I am sure that Commissioner Verheugen, who represents the European Union in the transatlantic dialogue, can achieve a great deal in this matter.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that as a result of the forthcoming EU-US Summit the US visa-waiver programme will be extended to all EU citizens, including my home country, Slovakia.

  Stolojan, Theodor Dumitru (PPE-DE ). – (RO) Mister President, I would like to thank Commissioner Verheugen for having introduced on the agenda of the EU-USA summit the visa issue that my country’s citizens are concerned with, and I represent them here in the European Parliament. Furthermore, I insist that the USA join the European Union’s efforts in responding to the challenges generated by climate change; otherwise, all European companies will be disadvantaged in terms of competition with the USA.

  Dimitrij Rupel, President-in-Office . – (SL) Allow me to answer the three questions which I consider to be most important.

Firstly, with regard to the question by Mr Rouček concerning the anti-missile shield. The question which Mr Rouček asks in some way goes beyond a European Union issue, since it concerns agreements between two individual European countries and the United States of America, and two countries in particular, the Czech Republic and Poland, which are concluding bilateral agreements with the United States.

I personally would like these matters to be discussed within NATO or within the European Union, but at present that is not possible. As I said, it is a bilateral matter which, of course, falls within the competence of the countries that are concluding these agreements.

As regards the Visa Waiver Programme, which has been the subject of a great deal of criticism and which has been discussed many times in this House, I would like to say the following: with regard to extending this programme, the Visa Waiver Programme, we hope that, in accordance with the agreement on a twin-track approach – the approach adopted at the EU-US Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Meeting – progress will soon be made.

To date it has been agreed that the United States will negotiate with the individual Member States on matters which fall within national competence and with the Commission on matters which fall within the European Union’s competence. This I said earlier in my opening speech. Therefore, we expect the Visa Waiver Programme to be extended to include more Member States of the European Union by the end of 2008. At present eleven countries are still not covered by the programme.

I would like to say a few words on climate change, Mr President, if I may. The question was whether we have done enough on this issue or problem. I am pleased that two important meetings on climate change and energy have been held during our Presidency, firstly the ‘High Level Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development’ and secondly the ‘Strategic Energy Review’.

Nevertheless, we would like the United States to show greater commitment in this field, and we in the European Union will try to persuade our American friends of the importance of acting globally and in agreement between the Europeans and Americans. At present there are considerable differences between us.

I should also say that the European Union is firmly of the view that the issue of combating climate change must be dealt with within the framework of the United Nations. That much I can contribute to the discussion for my part.

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to address two issues briefly. First of all, cooperation on security issues, which Mrs in ’t Veld has outlined very succinctly and which concerns how we find the right balance between the security requirements of our American friends and the demand that we ourselves are making on individual freedom and the individual rights of our citizens.

I should like to say quite clearly to you, Mrs in ’t Veld, that the Commission fully shares your concerns and I shall, of course, be informing the relevant colleague of the criticism you have expressed on the lack of transparency in the process and asking him to ensure greater transparency.

We shall be talking to the Americans before we can accept anything regarding the principles that must lead us to cooperate on these issues. If there is no understanding on these principles, there can hardly be any understanding on individual issues. This is, of course, one of the subjects to be addressed at next week’s meeting in Ljubljana.

It gives me no pleasure to say anything more here about poultry, but the subject has been addressed by several speakers here. It is always good to know what we are actually talking about. It is therefore also important to know that we are not talking about a food safety issue here. For many years now the competent European Food Safety Authority has been explaining that there is not the slightest risk to consumer health from imported American poultry. We are not talking about a veterinary problem; we are talking about an issue of pure trade policy, which must be dealt with from the point of view: what are our interests and how do we best defend our interests? I think I have said what I needed to say to you.

Nor are there any differing opinions in the Commission. The Commission has from the outset been explaining – as I must say – how not to allow this somewhat bizarre dispute to become a burden and how to rid ourselves of the problem.

  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 tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Magor Imre Csibi (ALDE ), in writing. – (RO) As Vice-president of the ENVI Committee, I encourage the EU representatives participating in the meeting with the officials of the United States to analyse solutions concerning the issue of climate change.

Climate change is a global challenge for which we should prepare a global response. Europe is taking steps in this regard. The same example is expected from our neighbours across the ocean. I am glad that the Unites States will join the efforts of the international community, after 2012, following the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol.

I appreciate as well that, in the end, the US President has admitted that we need legislation with a view to reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions. I encourage EU representatives to discuss a real reduction percentage for actually putting an end to global warming. We cannot accept that we need legislation in this regard, and when we reach the figures, we turn back.

At the same time, future debates regarding the cooperation framework on climate change must be based upon real studies on renewable energy sources. I am mainly referring to first generation biofuels. It is necessary to maintain a low percentage of their use and a low grants level. In this way, we will protect biodiversity and avoid the price increase of food products generated by the reduction of land for agricultural activity.

  András Gyürk (PPE-DE ), in writing. – (HU) The EU-USA summit that will take place in a few days’ time is a good opportunity for us to examine the development of transatlantic relations in the most important areas. We feel that cooperation on energy policy must assume an important role on the agenda.

Security of energy supply continues to be the primary objective on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It is common knowledge that most stocks are in countries that do not always meet the requirements of democracy. It is for precisely this reason that joint action and continued efforts are needed in the interests of promoting human rights and constitutionality. It is important for us to emphasise that spreading the principles of democracy will also mean greater security of energy supply.

In addition to the above, future cooperation must focus on the fight against climate change with even more emphasis. It is a very welcome development that the United States have committed to creating the basis for the post-Kyoto regime. The Member States of the European Union and the United States must play a leading role, in the interests of having the most developed countries agree on the most important cornerstones of the international treaty before the end of the year. The package of measures relating to reducing emissions that was recently introduced into American legislation is the latest sign that Washington wants to assume an active role in the fight against climate change.

Oil prices, which are bombarding levels that were previously unimaginable, draw our attention to the importance of joint international action in the area of energy policy. We are convinced that it is unavoidable for the United States and Europe to take responsibility in this area.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE ), in writing. – EU-US relations in many issues have been through substantial changes over the last years and are moving into a phase of consolidation for many items of cooperation. The recent case of the negotiations on lifting visa restrictions for travellers from the EU is an excellent example – in spite of the positive outcome – showing why, in order to ensure successful talks between the US and the EU, we ought to avoid mere bilateral agreements which actually undermine the negotiating powers of the EU as a whole.

Having a package agreement encompassing the 27 Member States, based on the distribution of competences between the Union and the Member States, was indeed crucial in order to support the EU visa common policy. It is essential to ensure that, where Community competences apply, we secure EU-wide deals with our strategic partners such as the United States. In my opinion, it is in the interest of both partners. It is indeed the only way to ensure that the Visa Waiver Programme brings full reciprocal visa free travel and equal treatment for all our citizens as regards the status of their passports, just as for US citizens.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE ), in writing. – It is the moment to stress with all clarity and responsibility that the EU-US partnership is not only a cornerstone of the credible and efficient EU foreign actions but that only close cooperation and coordination between both partners would enable them to play key roles in the globalising world and to be guarantors of stability and democracy.

The European Union has no other partner in the world with whom to share the basic values of freedom, the rule of law and defence of human rights.

It is high time to fully restore normal cooperation and mutual trust after the damage that has followed the Iraqi invasion. The latter has dramatically split the EU itself.

Therefore, I strongly call on both partners to complete without delays the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council. Also a joint approach to the problems of climate change will substantially enhance the chances of solving these problems. The same applies for Iran. Both the USA and EU need to agree on a common strategy on Iran to efficiently stop preparations to develop nuclear weapons there.

Finally, we need a stronger redefined EU-NATO partnership which will also improve our cooperation in Afghanistan.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE ), in writing. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to raise two issues that the EU needs to focus attention on at the summit. Global challenges mean that the West above all has to show consistency and a sense of responsibility.

Firstly, the Union should have a constructive debate on America’s role in climate policy. The world has one and a half years to change course before Copenhagen. On the one hand, we have to encourage the United States to make essential plans for legislation on climate. We need to stress that the solution to the problem of global climate change is a worldwide low-carbon economy. This means that the carbon market mechanisms of different countries should be made compatible and in the course of time integrated with one another. America’s regional emissions trading systems inspire hope.

On the other hand, we need to recognise that our partner in the fight against climate change is better than its reputation. The EU should look for guidance from the United States and acknowledge its fruitful endeavours to develop clean technology. The Union has some way to go here. The United States is showing the way ahead by proposing to establish an international fund for environmentally friendly technology. Cooperation between the EU and the United States will also be very important in order to bring in measures to adapt to climate change.

Secondly, the summit should highlight the basic values to which we are jointly committed: democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We have to venture to ask how our value base is implemented in the policies of the Western world. Do world leader’s actions look good in the light of day, for example, in the fight against terrorism? Because terrorism is a threat the EU and the United States share, the means of countering it needs to stand up to scrutiny.

Sometimes global political rhetoric and the everyday world seem to forget the fact that our value base does not place an obligation on others in the first place, but on ourselves, whether we are talking about the Middle East, the Western Balkans, or Africa.

  Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM ), in writing. – The forthcoming EU-US summit will give both transatlantic partners a chance to find common ground on issues relevant to both sides of the Atlantic. Our continents share a common civilisation and a past. We have to ensure that the knot of this relationship is as strong as possible so we can achieve the goals that are not only important for both sides but are global necessities. The growing and extreme need for energy by emerging economies, rising food prices, and conflicts around the world are just some of the issues that the EU-US partnership has to work on together for peace, sustainability, and to facilitate human dignity around the globe. One of the success stories of this relationship is NATO, an organisation we should all support and strengthen as it has secured peace in Europe and developed deeper ties between the EU and the US.

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

  Emmanouil Angelakas (PPE-DE ). – (EL) Mr President, there has recently been a growing clamour within the EU for the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, above all to meet Europe’s energy demands.

The problem is the unchecked rise in the price of oil, the increasing demand from a number of countries with rapidly growing economies, regional disturbances in oil-producing countries, as well as the fact that renewable sources of energy or natural gas will cover a mere fraction of Europe’s energy needs. As a result, the construction of nuclear plants is being tabled for discussion.

Many questions worry European citizens. Can the safe operation of nuclear power plants be guaranteed? Do appropriate early warning systems exist to guarantee sufficient notice in the event of an operational problem? Finally, how safe is the management of nuclear waste? For all these reasons, I believe that on the initiative of the European Parliament and with the collaboration of the Commission, a dialogue could usefully be conducted leading to clear, unambiguous conclusions for European citizens. I call on the French Presidency to make this issue a real priority in its agenda.

  Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva (PSE ). – (BG) Mr. President, Dear colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to an issues that makes us responsible for the future of the European Union and the world at large. This is the trafficking in children.

In the 21st century, the age of high technologies and progress, this problems persists and it is too inhumane and brutal to be ignored or confused with other problems. The trafficking in children does exist. It is an encroachment not only against human rights; it is an encroachment against the future, as well.

The life of any child is a blessing and its destruction is a crime against mankind. The trafficking in children has atrocious consequences. It is called “modern slavery”. What follows is physical and mental mistreatment, sexual exploitation, homicide.

What we need is to join our efforts and cooperate in a common policy to reduce and minimize its existence. The European Commission should set up a separate programme and an action plan within the framework of the strategy for children and to undertake the measures needed for the establishment of common structures and policy.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE ). – (RO) Mister President, dear colleagues, European dependence on hydrofuels import has increased, oil prices have reached an alarming level and the European Union is increasingly vulnerable to OPEC countries and Russia.

There is a need to approach the foreign relations in the energy field with joint efforts. The bilateral agreements between the Member States and third countries must reinforce the common European approach and not weaken it. The agreements signed by Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria with Russia in terms of building the South STREAM, a pipeline designed to avoid a Member State, like Romania, without any economic reasons, seriously affects the cohesion of European energy policy and represents political strategies that must be avoided among Member States. I was expecting a firmer position by the European Commission in condemning this situation.

With regard to the legislation on energy security that is to be adopted in the second half of this year, I believe we should show an ambition level comparable to the one in the case of the legislation “Energy – Climate changes”. The speaking with one voice principle must become functional and the Commission should propose a mechanism regarding agreements with third countries, perhaps inspired from the nuclear energy field. If we want to be successful, we must act together.

  Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE ). – (DE) Mr President, last Sunday reactionary nationalists brutally beat up homosexuals at a peace rally in Moscow, thereby hammering the image of an unfree Russia into our consciousness once again. There is still discrimination against gays and lesbians on a massive scale. In recent years, the German Green politician Volker Beck has been beaten and arrested at rallies. It cannot be emphasised often enough how badly organised civil society is in Russia.

At the end of June a new EU-Russia Agreement is finally to be negotiated in Siberia. We owe it to the people of Russia and of other autocratic regimes not to allow the issue of energy security to overshadow all other sectors. Human rights and basic democratic freedoms must form the basis of this new agreement.

  Dariusz Maciej Grabowski (UEN ). – (PL) Mr President, the Polish shipyard industry is under threat of total closure because the European Commission is demanding the return of sums provided from public aid. The effect of this will be that thousands of employees on the Baltic will lose their jobs, and tens of thousands of employees at factories that work with the shipyards, both in Poland and in other EU countries, will likewise be out of work.

The European Commission is hiding behind the slogan of free competition, not wanting to admit to itself that during a period of massive price rises on a global scale some sections of the economy need to be protected, as Asiatic countries are doing. The European Commission is unwilling to recall that the eastern Länder received more than one and a half billion marks in aid from the German Government, and that included shipyards located on the Baltic.

I am asking whether the people and the place where the solidarity movement began – the fall of the Berlin Wall, the liberation of Europe – must fall victim to arbitrary decisions taken in Brussels in the interests of speculators who are looking to make their fortunes out of the rubble and soil of the shipyards. We are demanding that the European Commission take decisions that will enable the shipyard industry in Poland to be salvaged and developed.

  Věra Flasarová (GUE/NGL ). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like your support for a review of Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007, or for the return to the original material from 2005, because of requests by breeding organisations trading in exotic birds in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Czech Republic. The amendment basically relates to the ban on imports of exotic birds from the wild to the Union. Taking into account the practical situation for breeding small birds, the conditions imposed on their import are difficult to fulfil. It is obvious that the media hysteria surrounding bird flue was used to carry through the above-mentioned standard. The EU has a system of quarantine facilities whereby avian diseases that pose a threat to people are intercepted. On a number of occasions breeders have helped to return various animal species to the wild. They respect the law protecting the most endangered species listed in CITES. Banning only results in counter-pressures and attempts to bypass it. The black market will take off, smuggling will flourish and the prices of birds will rise. Health risks may also increase as a result. If the standard and tried and tested veterinary regulations are observed, including the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, there is no need to retain this Regulation.

  Urszula Krupa (IND/DEM ). – (PL) Mr President, I wish to use the forum of the European Parliament to protest against the unlawful termination by the National Fund for Environmental Protection, which is subordinate to the Polish Government, of its contract with the Lux Veritatis Foundation to implement a geothermal investment for Toruń, while at the same time announcing that there will be no refund of the vast sums that the Foundation has spent on this investment. The circumstances indicate that this decision has been dictated by political considerations, and it runs counter not only to domestic Polish law, but also to Community law, which proves that in the name of the battle against people perceived as political foes, the law is not being observed and support for renewable energy is not being permitted, which also breaches the fundamental EU principle of non-discrimination on political or religious grounds. The former authorities of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management say that the application by the Lux Veritatis Foundation was checked very carefully and not found wanting in any way.

  Irena Belohorská (NI ). – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, I want to inform you about an incident that happened in the United Kingdom recently. A Slovak citizen who was working there legally exceeded the deadline for re-registration of his vehicle by four days and for this offence the British police threatened to destroy his vehicle. While making their enquiries, the police behaved in a xenophobic and insulting manner, taking advantage of his passive knowledge of the English language. All his documents were confiscated for no good reason, he was given a newspaper scrap instead of an official certificate of vehicle confiscation and his documentation, such as his European car insurance (Green Card) or Slovak authorisation, was not accepted by the British authorities either. For this offence, and I mean just an offence, the British police and authorities threatened to scrap his vehicle.

I want to express my gratitude to my fellow Member Mr Chris Davies for his help in investigating this unfortunate case as well as to the other British Members who have taken an interest in the case. I trust that such action by the British police is an isolated incident and that this attitude towards citizens working legally in the United Kingdom is the exception rather than the rule. The deadline for the return of the vehicle expired yesterday, and as yet we have no information as to whether the vehicle has or has not been destroyed. One way or another, our citizen does not have his vehicle even though the British authorities have received all the necessary documentation.

  Petya Stavreva (PPE-DE ). – (BG) Mr. President, Members of the European Parliament, In ten days, on 14 June 2008, Bulgaria will pay tribute to the memory and life work of Alexander Stamboliiski, statesman, reformer and leader of the agrarian movement in the country.

He came to power in Bulgaria in 1919, after two national disasters, dedicating his efforts to the national cause, to the modernisation and democratic renewal of the country. He was overthrown through a coup d’etat in 1923. He was killed most brutally but he remained immortal with his ideas of free and independent Bulgaria on the way to construction and integration into Europe.

Stamboliiski’s lessons in statesmanship sound particularly relevant today, 85 years after his tragic death, when Bulgaria is a member of the European Union. The protection of national interests in the big European family, the preservation of the national identity side by side with the rapid adaptation to new realities should consolidate the efforts of all of us, citizens of unified Europe, for whom values are not just a hollow notion but a type of conduct, attitude and social response.

  Iliyana Malinova Yotova (PSE ). – (BG) Mr. President, the Bulgarian operational programmes within the framework of the EU funds were among the first to be approved by the Commission for the period from 2007 to 2013.

WE must admit that, being a new Member State, we are confronted with various difficulties in their specific implementation. Problems range from insufficient information to irregularities, even abuse with resources from the EU funds – “disorders” that do not spare any single EU Member State.

The Bulgarian Government finds the absorption of funds to be a major task. This has brought about radical reforms in all institutions responsible for the EU funds. A Deputy Prime Minister has been appointed to ensure the overall coordination of the process.

The unsatisfactory results of the absorption of funds so far become arguments in a vehement campaign of the domestic opposition that has repeatedly tried to discredit the country even here, in the plenary hall of the European Parliament.

The references to anonymous sources predicting an apocalyptic report of the Commission for Bulgaria in July even before it has started writing it are suggestions for domestic political purposes only but they do not contribute to the resolution of problems. Regrettably, the only thing they achieve is undermining the good name of my country. I want to declare very clearly that the Bulgarian State undertakes radical measures in the respective spheres and has the firm will to overcome the existing problems.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE ). – Mr President, you are probably aware that the buildings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg contain a more widespread presence of asbestos than was originally anticipated. Work for upgrading purposes and, more recently, for removal of the asbestos has been carried out since 2004 – apparently while the buildings have been in use. This is, in my view, unwise and hazardous behaviour, because any work on asbestos-containing structures inevitably releases carcinogenic fibres into the atmosphere.

It is my opinion that the European Parliament in Strasbourg must not be used unless and until all asbestos is appropriately removed and the buildings have been thoroughly decontaminated. In the interest of public health and transparency, I request that the President of this House make a fully comprehensive statement on this matter of asbestos removal from the European Parliament in Strasbourg as soon as possible.

  Willy Meyer Pleite (GUE/NGL ). – (ES) Mr President, we are currently facing a major fisheries crisis in the whole of the European Union, which is going to demand a rapid response from the European institutions. I think that it is essential that we create a tripartite committee involving the public authorities, the unions and the shipowners.

In order to tackle the crisis once and for all, we cannot paper over the cracks; we need to formulate a complete, structural proposal that covers every aspect of the crisis in the sector. We obviously advocate responsible fishing; we need to resolve the marketing of the product; we need to deal with the shortage of crew in the fleets and ensure fair employment relations and a way out of their precarious situation for the workers.

I think that it is very important at the moment for the European Parliament to lend its support to finding a way out of this crisis, because it also affects quality employment, and we need to be able to deal with circumstances that arise.

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM ). – Mr President, my London constituent, Mr Budd Margolis informs me that his Lithuanian relative, Rachel Margolis, has published her memoirs recounting her experiences in the Second World War. She escaped from the Vilna Ghetto and then worked with the partisans fighting against the Nazis. The Lithuanian authorities are now using her memoirs as evidence to prosecute surviving Jewish partisans as war criminals. These include Yitzhak Arad, the former director of Israel’s Holocaust Centre, and Fania Brancovskaja, the librarian at the Yiddish Institute at Vilnius University.

Lithuania is under an obligation to prosecute surviving Second World War criminals but so far has not successfully prosecuted one. Jewish partisans who fought against the Germans and their collaborators are regarded by some as traitors to Lithuania.

On behalf of many of my Jewish and non-Jewish constituents, I ask: where is the justice in persecuting Jewish partisans who fought against the Nazis, while the murderers of the Jews go unpunished?

  Jim Allister (NI ). – Mr President, across Europe we have seen wholly justified protests by fishermen about the sky-high price of fuel. Some governments have faced up to their responsibilities; others, like my own, have not.

We are supposed to have a common fisheries policy, but in many regions of Europe the approach is anything but common. In my constituency local, small-trawler owners are paying a fuel bill of over EUR 2 000 per day. Their plea for short-term aid has fallen on deaf ears, even though it lies within the power of the local minister to pay de minimis aid under state rules. She has shamefully refused to do so. Yet in France and Spain, government action has been taken.

How can you have a viable common fisheries policy with such disparity on the basic commodity of fuel? I condemn Minister Gildernew’s indifference and call not just for short-term aid but a long-term fuel strategy for our fishing sector.

  Jim Higgins (PPE-DE ). – (GA) Mr President, the Irish government is about to launch a national broadband scheme. Broadband is unavailable in 10% of the country and the majority of that

10% is located in the region I come from – namely the west and the midlands. Although broadband is growing, the rate of growth is not satisfactory and does not coincide with the European Union average.

In Ireland, there is an 86% availability of broadband in urban areas, but the availability of broadband in rural areas is much less. Something must be done. We are envious of the situation in the north of the country where broadband is available in every area. I would like the European Commission to put pressure on the Irish government so that we can achieve the aims of the Lisbon Agenda.

  Cătălin-Ioan Nechifor (PSE ). – (RO) In a short time, the reports of the European Commission will be published reflecting the progress that Romania and Bulgaria have made regarding the justice reform.

Today, a year and a half after integration, more and more dissatisfied persons are speaking up on a European level, reaching the point that the progress achieved up to now is regarded as insignificant, compared to the assumed objectives. Even though in some experts support that Romania and Bulgaria, should have been accepted to the European Union much earlier, I consider that these two new Member States must be further assisted and supported by the Commission and the Parliament.

Taking into account that next year the elections for the European Parliament will take place, I am convinced that the following months will be essential for Bulgaria and Romania to fully prove its European membership.

  Marco Cappato (ALDE ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to raise an issue of linguistic discrimination within Parliament: the interface of MEPs’ computers functions only in English. It is only possible to navigate our operating systems and access files using our computers if we have a command of the English language.

This seems to me to be totally discriminatory as regards those MEPs who, although they do not know English, would like to manage their work directly on their own computers. This is a problem of linguistic authorisation which our friends in the Esperanto movement are trying to tackle at the United Nations, and I am not too sure what the francophony movement is dealing with if it is not also dealing with this issue. I hope, Mr President, that this problem can be remedied, and that a remedy can also be found for the technological discrimination I encountered when I tabled a written question on 2 June in an open format – the ODF format – different from the Microsoft format which is currently in use. The reply I received from the department responsible was that it was not possible to table questions in an open format.

I hope that these forms of linguistic and technological discrimination may be promptly overcome.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL ). – (EL) Mr President, the price increases of all mass-market consumer goods, transport and services combined with low wages and pensions, and drastic cuts in social welfare benefits have inflicted repeated damage on people’s incomes while generating enormous profits for monopoly business groups.

Prices have risen uncontrollably for ordinary working-class families in all Member States. Those who try to blame the high prices on a few bad speculators are deceiving the people. They are hiding the fact that high prices are fuelled by the profits of monopolies, and free market and competition policies, which are at the very basis of the EU itself and its policies that have been shaped and implemented by Member States and their governments. High prices start with the monopoly on production and trade, which is dominated by the business groups plundering people’s incomes, and crushing thousands of small businesses and undertakings.

We call on the workers to step up their struggle for real wage increases, pensions, social welfare benefits, and the abolition of VAT on common consumer goods, services of general interest and fuel, in a bid to reduce the prices of public utilities.

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE ). – (HU) On 15 May, a piece of legislation was created in the USA which is a milestone in the crisis surrounding illegal logging, which can be experienced worldwide. Congress was the first in the world to pass such an Act, which bans the import of illegally logged wood. In 2006, 10% of imports to the United States were produced from illegally logged wood. Following the adoption of the Act, analyses have emphasised that this Act is helping the competitiveness of American factories, protects jobs, and sends a clear message to which forestry communities will listen.

My question is this: how long will the European Union wait, and what is it waiting for? It is shameful and disgraceful that we are waiting with our arms folded. But we MEPs can do something: I recommend that everyone sign petition 23, which was presented a couple of months ago and the aim of which is for us to persuade the Commission to introduce legislation at last, after the United States, while we still have forests. Thank you very much.

  Neena Gill (PSE ). – Mr President, I want to draw your attention to the plight of one of my constituents, Alan Jones, from Knighton, a rural town in the West Midlands, who is a striking example of an entrepreneur in Europe who has been let down by the absence of high-speed broadband connection in rural areas. He wants to set up a small online company that will offer photo-framing services. He, as a person with a disability, working from home, would be ideal to start up a new business. However, there is only one Internet service provider who has a monopoly of broadband in the town and, although it is expanding, the connection is extremely slow and simply not conducive to running a business.

The Commission has a plan to bridge the digital divide and expand broadband to rural areas, and it urgently needs to solve the problems of Internet service providers and ensure there are adequate resources, and that areas are not lagging behind in terms of quality and high speed and low cost.

What I would like you to do, Mr President, is to make sure that the Commission ensures that entrepreneurs like Mr Jones are not prevented or frustrated from starting up businesses, which prevents the creation of much-needed jobs in rural areas.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE ). – (LT) The European Commission and members of the WTO are rushing to finalise the Doha talks on agriculture and the opening of the market for industrial goods, NAMA. The significant influence of the current situation in the United States, the election, is evident. However, compared with the suspension of the round in 2006, the NAMA issue is obviously a step backwards. Highly developed countries are managing to maintain an almost unchanged environmental situation. EU textile and clothing tariffs will be down from 12 to 4%. The markets of emerging economies will not open, as it is not tariffs, but the obligations of maximum tariffs that are to be curtailed. Besides, an 18-year transitional period is to be applied to China, the country that flooded Europe and the rest of the world with low-quality goods. The tabled NAMA project is unacceptable to Lithuania and other EU countries, as it would jeopardise their competitiveness. There is an obvious balance between agriculture and NAMA. The EU should not race to complete the Doha talks merely on account of its economy. I would urge the Commission to take its time and represent the EU countries’ interests fairly.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL ). – (PT) Mr President, I should like to congratulate the fishermen from different countries of the European Union, and from Portugal in particular, on their fight to protect the strategic fisheries sector, as well as jobs, decent wages and living conditions for thousands of fishermen and their families.

Faced with a common fisheries policy and a European Union that is indifferent to the longstanding socio-economic crisis this sector is undergoing, that has become all the more acute due to increases in the price of and financial speculation on fuel – diesel and petrol – fishermen have finally shown that there are solutions and measures that should have been taken a long time ago. Solutions and measures requiring the European Union to stop turning a deaf ear, adopting new policies that protect and promote the fisheries sector, not its slow agony and ruin. Fisheries have a future.

I cannot conclude this brief intervention without acknowledging the thousands of workers who will be demonstrating in Lisbon tomorrow in defence of their achievements and labour rights.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE ). – (CS) Mr President, the enlargement of the Schengen area was excellent news for the citizens of my country, a symbol of the equality of Czech citizens with the other countries of the Union. Sadly, today’s newspapers are full of headlines about Czech drivers being hassled by German and Austrian police. Since April systematic and detailed checks on buses and private cars with Czech registration plates have been carried out in Germany and Austria. After just over a month of general checking, Austria announced its intention to carry out checks, starting in June, in connection with the European Football Championship. That is fair enough. However, I strongly object to general checks on Czech drivers in Germany. This is a one-sided decision that is difficult to explain and it is damaging neighbourly relations. I get letters from citizens asking for the Czech authorities to retaliate. This is not a good situation and it will also affect the political climate prior to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. I have already submitted an appeal and now I am asking my fellow German Members to look into this matter at home in Germany.

  Rovana Plumb (PSE ). – (RO) Dear colleagues, I would like to welcome the shares program initiated by the Council of Europe, which aims to eliminate all forms of violence among children and I am convinced that in 2009 physical punishment will be forbidden all over the world.

Yet, I would like to underline the need for a common campaign on a European level, by means of which children become aware of the fact that violence towards them is against the law and that they must confess any ill treatment they are subjected to. In some EU Member States, parents regard physical punishment as a normal method of education and children assume this as being normal.

The future of the European Union depends on the way children’s rights are observed, and during their education we must have in mind an approach that forbids any form of violence.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL ). – (PT) Eurofound recently reported that 25% of redundancies in Portugal between 2003 and 2006 stemmed from company relocations. Records show that several multinationals have done so after having received millions of euros in community aid and after making millions in profit, which is unacceptable.

There are cases of workers still not having received the compensation to which they are entitled, as is the case in Vila Nova de Gaia and Brax, whose workers went to the Courthouse door yesterday to call for the compensation money that they have been owed for five years.

Unemployment is also acting as a justification for ever more precarious employment, to which the Government responds with more attempts to set back labour rights. I therefore welcome the day of action that the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP) is holding tomorrow in Lisbon, Portugal.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE ). – Mr President, I would just like to draw the attention of the House to the conference that is taking place in Rome on the global food crisis. We have expressed our concerns in this House about this issue in our recent resolution on food prices.

One of the key issues is the under-investment in agriculture, both in the developed and the developing world. The extent of that problem was brought home to me at a conference in Ireland just last week, when a Missionary Sister of the Holy Rosary, Nora MacNamara, mentioned very clearly that, when she was involved in agriculture many years ago in Africa, there was investment. And then, she said, Africa – or rather agriculture – became a dirty word when looking for funds to support projects in this area. We need to go back to our roots in terms of investing in agriculture.

Can I just say, in the debate on the Treaty of Lisbon in Ireland, that this Treaty will actually enhance the European Union’s role in the developing world and, in my view, will assist us in meeting the food crisis which we are now facing not just in Europe, but globally.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE ). – (HU) In February this year, Mr Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, gave an extremely controversial speech in Cologne, in which he called assimilation a crime against humanity. From a position of freedom to choose one’s identity, this statement is unacceptable; preserving cultural diversity is an important goal, but the decision cannot be taken away from the individual.

The natural situation for Turks in Western Europe may be dual identity. Erdogan’s requirement for a Turkish-language university in Germany is unrealistic, since in many countries of the Union the indigenous national minorities who have lived there for many hundreds of years do not have their own state university, like the Hungarians in Transylvania, where the Hungarian community was deprived of an independent state university during the Communist dictatorship.

It is important that Turkey does not manipulate the migrant minorities living in Western Europe for interior policy aims. It would also be good if Prime Minister Erdogan put his own house in order in the areas of the situation of the Kurds, acknowledging the genocide of Armenians and equality of rights for women.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE ). – (RO) Mister President, European socialists hope that Europe becomes an example for the whole world in terms of life quality. The 27 Member States are now building a new social Europe which will bring prosperity to all citizens of the European Union.

From the Union’s budget for 2008, almost 45% is allocated to growth, innovation, job creation and economic and social cohesion, and 42,6% is allocated to agriculture. Rural areas represent 90% of the European Union territory.

Despite the EURO 41 million allocated to agriculture in 2008, the increase of costs for agricultural works and the increase in energy prices brought about an increase in prices of agricultural products and caused the economic situation to deteriorate. I consider that the grants policy for agriculture and adequate conditions for the promotion of investments in the field are the answer to part of the challenges the Union will encounter in the following years.

A developed agriculture will allow all European citizens to have access to healthy food and sufficient quantities, at affordable prices. Healthy nutrition is a fundamental aspect of life quality.

  President. − That concludes this item.

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0200/2008 ) by Helmuth Markov, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the proposal for a Council regulation applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 964/2007 and No 1100/2006 (COM(2007)0857 – C6-0051/2008 – 2007/0289(CNS) ).

  Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission . − Mr President, let me first apologise on behalf of Peter Mandelson, who is not able to be here to discuss with this House the regulation on the generalised system of preferences (GSP). He has asked me to speak on his behalf.

I thank you for your work and the valuable comments made on the proposal for a GSP regulation for 2009-2011. The Commission considered it important that Parliament should be able to express its opinion, and we really appreciate the effort you have made to examine the proposals and provide an opinion, even in a rather short timetable. We therefore welcome the opinion and the opportunity to engage with you and explain the Commission’s position.

The GSP scheme is an important pro-development instrument of EU trade policy. The Commission therefore appreciates the recognition in the opinion that the EU’s GSP is the most important such scheme among the developed countries and that it continues to make an important contribution to the objective of promoting development and poverty reduction in the developing world.

We share the objective expressed by Parliament that the scheme should continue to operate in a stable, transparent and predictable manner. These aspects are important for the beneficiary countries themselves, giving them and economic operators within the EU a firmer basis for their own decision-making on trade and investment opportunities.

The Commission considers that all three components of the scheme – the standard GSP for all beneficiaries, the ‘GSP Plus’ for those countries that make specific commitments in terms of adherence to international standards for good governance and sustainable development, and the Everything But Arms initiative for the least-developed countries – are operating well and in line with the overall policy orientations put in place for the period 2006-2015. That is why the basic approach underpinning the proposed regulation for 2009-2011 is one of continuity in substance, combined with some technical updating.

We are working actively with the Member States in the Council towards agreement on the final regulation. The Presidency has set the objective of achieving this before the end of June. That is something the Commission supports, since an early decision is important to ensure that beneficiary countries and all other interested parties, including business operators, have sufficient notice of the changes to be made next January.

Another very important reason for an early decision is that all those countries that wish to apply for ‘GSP Plus’ treatment will have to do so by the end of October and need confirmation as soon as possible of the relevant criteria and the process they will have to follow.

I would note that some of Parliament’s comments and suggestions in fact relate to issues that go beyond the scope of this regulation, even if they are certainly issues of importance from a development perspective.

Reform of the EC’s preferential rules of origin, including for the purpose of the GSP, is being taken forward in a separate exercise headed by Commissioner Kovács.

A number of comments also touch on the need to ensure that developing countries are able to access sufficient and good-quality aid for trade to help them build trade capacity and harness the potential of trade to drive their own economic growth and sustainable development. Here the European Union has already demonstrated its strong commitment and, in the EU Aid for Trade strategy of October 2007, has put in place a firm basis on which to make yet further improvements.

In conclusion, let me repeat that we very much appreciate the interest shown by Parliament in these proposals.

  Helmuth Markov, rapporteur . − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, development cooperation and trade are usually the most important external forces able to contribute to a country’s development. Non-reciprocal tariff preferences for developing countries are an important and internationally recognised instrument that the European Union has been using for many years.

Three kinds of arrangements are currently in force. Firstly, the general arrangement that applies to all beneficiary countries.

Secondly, the GSP+ incentive scheme, which provides additional benefits for countries implementing certain international standards in human and labour rights, environmental protection, the fight against drugs, and good governance.

Thirdly, the special arrangement for the least-developed countries, which in theory offers them duty-free and quota-free access to the EU internal market for ‘Everything But Arms’. My personal view here is that it is absolutely fatal that that there is still no legally binding regulation banning exports of arms from the European Union to these countries.

All the trade preferences in the world are of no use if violent conflicts destroy the basis of a functioning national economy.

The report before us contains improvements to the Commission proposal for the GSP system for the period from January 2009 to December 2011 under the following items:

Firstly, improvement in application and effectiveness. This also includes shortening the amendment and test deadlines from three-year to one-year periods.

Secondly, developing rules for a reform process in which the beneficiaries are included as appropriate.

Thirdly, coherence with the multilateral framework of the WTO and thereby, of course, with the objectives of the Doha Development Round. Ranking among these, along with the necessary impact assessment of the development capability of the EU’s trade policy instruments, is, in first place, the fact that reform of the EU’s rules of origin is taking place at the same time as the new GSP scheme comes into force, and secondly and above all, that rules on the requirements for beneficiary countries are being improved. I am therefore thinking, for example, of the possibility of inter-regional and cross-regional cumulation. This means that a product produced in a regional but cross-border production process does not fall short of GSP acceptance on the basis of meaningless country of origin rules.

Fourthly, securing democratic and parliamentary control of the implementation and adaptation, if necessary, of the regulation currently in force. I should like to say here that I welcome the Commission’s inclusion of Parliament in the consultation process at this point in time, but that Parliament will have to make joint decisions on these issues in future on a fairly regular basis. I assume from this that the Commission will take our amendments seriously this time instead of largely ignoring them, as in the case of the own-initiative report on reform two years ago.

A comment on the GSP+ incentive scheme: I think it is extremely important when evaluating the human rights situation and good governance – not just in trade relations – that the various countries are not measured by different standards. At the same time it is perfectly clear, however, that a rash abandonment of trade preferences can have disastrous consequences for the population of a developing country and even for the human rights situation there, too.

The decision on how well or badly the international agreements specified in the annex to the current regulation are actually implemented and whether preferences should be abandoned if necessary should therefore be tested extremely carefully.

I should like to support Amendment 37 tabled here, which reminds us that every possibility should be checked so that the countries not among the least-developed and that have not signed any economic partnership agreement can enjoy a new framework for trade, which offers trade preferences that at least correspond to those of the Cotonou Agreement.

In this connection I should like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and the Committee on Development – and Mr Kaczmarek over there – for their cooperation and willingness to compromise. The Committee on International Trade has been able to accept this report unanimously, including the contents of the opinion of the Committee on Development.

There has been extensive agreement with the Council and the Commission – we also had regular debates on this – and I therefore hope that the regulation can enter into force as planned in good time and that there will be no disparities between the current and the new preference period.

  Filip Kaczmarek, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. − (PL) Mr President, the international community recognises trade as a fundamental factor of development. More active inclusion of developing countries in multilateral relations is a very important stage on the road to eliminating world poverty. The generalised tariff preferences system does not, therefore, help the development of EU trade. It primarily serves to support developing countries, including the least developed ones. The main objectives of the system should consequently be to reduce poverty and to facilitate sustainable development and good governance in developing countries, as well as to implement the Millennium Goals.

As draftsman for the Committee on Development I would like to emphasise that Mr Markov’s report is a very good one, and I would like to thank both the rapporteur and the Committee on International Trade for accepting the opinion of the Committee on Development. These two committees have not always worked together in such harmony as has been evident in this case, so I would like to express my sincere thanks.

Among the issues we recognised jointly as being the most important are: strengthening Parliament’s role in the system decision-making process – to increase transparency, legal certainty and democratic control; to make it easier to establish the country of origin principle – in order to optimise the application of preferences, e.g. through inter-regional cumulation, which will at the same time promote regional cooperation in poorer countries; equal treatment for all countries as candidates for GSP+, regardless of when they meet the system’s criteria; and last but not least, the most penetrative, complete and detailed analysis of the effect of the system before its next review for the years 2013-2014.

Parliament would like to know the effects of the functioning of the system. Key to this is knowledge of the extent to which the tariff preferences system helps to limit poverty.

  Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group . – (DE) Mr President, the system under debate here serves to combat poverty and backwardness. Three points seem to me to be important here. First, since this is now the continuation: there should be flexibility both on entering the system and on leaving it, if parameters were to be changed in one state. In other words: must a state that was once a beneficiary always remain a beneficiary? This does not appear to be the case to me. We should not forget that the EU also has a duty to its own citizens, workers and consumers. There must be a reciprocal advantage; it should not always be one-sided.

Secondly, we welcome the fact that the European Parliament is to be informed during the next term. We would also like an assessment of this system, however. This assessment should provide a comparison with other preferential measures such as the EPA, for example. We would realistically state that statistically, a gap is continually opening up between rich and poor, despite the EU’s diverse measures and despite the measures of the Member States. Are our certainly well-intentioned efforts still leading to the right results? We ought to be asking ourselves this question quite deliberately.

Thirdly, preferential measures such as, for example, the GSP system we are discussing here, should be linked to the following criteria. We need a certain strictness here. First, the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. Second, the construction of a minimum framework on social and environmental standards in the beneficiary states. We want to provide assistance with this, which is also clearly stated in the report. We should not be backing down, however, for the sake of our own credibility.

My thanks at this point go to the rapporteur for his effective cooperation.

  Kader Arif, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when Parliament voiced its opinion on the application of the GSP for the 2005-2008 period, the Commission did not see fit to incorporate its proposals. We stand by these priorities today, particularly the fact that Parliament must be more involved in the allocation and monitoring of the various GSP schemes.

The role of representatives of civil society, and social partners in particular, must also be strengthened. They represent a valuable source of information when checking that the main conventions governing the allocation of GSP+ have been implemented. On this point, I am pleased that the new regulation will be tougher on the respect for good governance provisions relating to workers’ rights, human rights and the environment. The Union must have faith in its values and encourage its trading partners not only to ratify its conventions, but also to implement them concretely.

This is why we are asking the Commission to incorporate one of our proposals which is essential for the GSP+ to continue acting as an incentive. At present, a country which is not eligible for GSP+ from 2009 will have to wait until the introduction of the next regulation in 2012 in order to reapply. We would like it to be possible to submit new applications every year so that developing countries have a real incentive to implement these conventions as soon as possible to benefit from the GSP+.

Finally, I would like to remind everyone of the need to reform the rules of origin in order to have a global, simplified and harmonised system based on strengthening regional integration, which remains its primary vocation. Calculations of national added value must therefore take into account the particular situation of poor countries, which are not able to benefit if the rules of origin are too restrictive. With the GSP, the Union has a means of fostering not only the integration of developing countries within world trade, but also of spreading good governance.

Parliament’s proposals would allow progress on both counts. We hope that they will be incorporated by the Commission.

  Seán Ó Neachtain, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (GA) Mr President, the EU gives the most in financial aid to the third world. However, third world countries are in need of more than just money. It is extremely important that those countries’ economies are developed and strengthened. I very much support trade between Europe, and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

I cannot agree with the World Trade talks in Geneva. The deal on offer will in no way benefit European agriculture; it will not help food security in Europe – or indeed, in Ireland. We are not the only ones, however, who are dissatisfied. America is also dissatisfied. And of the 152 countries involved in global trading it would appear that only two are satisfied.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the decision made by the Farmers' Association in Ireland to accept and support the Lisbon Treaty. In about a week’s time the referendum on the Treaty will take place in Ireland. I would also like to say that we would like the Treaty to be authorized and adopted so that we will be stronger and more unified in the process involving future world talks.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group . – Mr President, on the face of it, I should be in favour of this report which seeks to help under-developed nations. After all, Britain’s Commonwealth preference system was of enormous benefit to the less well-off members of the British Commonwealth, but then I do not suppose you want to hear how a wicked post-imperial power actually helped its poorer neighbours.

The problem is that EU programmes always turn out to have the opposite effect to that intended. The CFP, intended to conserve fish stocks, is a disaster as a result of which the EU, by the votes of this House, has awarded licences to EU fishing fleets to raid the waters of one Third World country after another, bringing poverty and starvation where once there was at least subsistence level. Excess sugar production is dumped on the Third World, to which the answer evidently is to reduce European production, not put it to better use. Poor-quality EU tobacco grown with EUR 18 million of our taxpayers’ money every year was dumped where it did most harm. Now we are told this money will go on anti-smoking propaganda, not Third World aid.

EU aid programmes are a classic case of giving with one hand and taking back with the other. The CAP restricts imports, hampering developing nations while at the same time dumping its excess in the Third World. Poor local farmers are thus put out of business, pulling the rug from under the very countries that the GSP is meant to help. Food prices are spiralling so much that former Soviet Union leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, is warning of a food revolution. While all this is going on, the EU is promoting biofuel targets, which will impact on food production in the Third World more than anywhere.

So this House can wax lyrical about how the EU’s GSP programme will come to the aid of less-developed nations, but the truth is that EU policies will only help to ensure that the poor stay poor, the hungry stay hungry, and the less-developed nations stay undeveloped.

  Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE ). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to reiterate the importance of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) for the economic and trade development of the beneficiary countries.

Parliament’s amendments have largely improved the proposal for a regulation, which will cover the 2009-2011 period, and have focused on aspects that could improve the conditions for using the system by these beneficiary countries, such as provision of technical assistance by the European Union, which is a fundamental element for taking better advantage of the trade benefits of the GSP.

It is also worth highlighting the possibility for some countries to apply for inclusion in the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development, GSP+, which is more advantageous, and moreover the fact that they can do so every year. I think, however, that some of the amendments adopted in the Committee on International Trade go too far.

Amendment 8, regarding the possibility that countries that are not the final recipients of exports can benefit from the more favourable GSP+ and Everything But Arms arrangements, could be detrimental to some countries that really do deserve to be included in these arrangements. In general, it could create more confusion in the application of the GSP and of the rules of origin. This is an issue that should be left for the next review of the rules of origin.

I think that there is also a need to highlight, as some of my colleagues have done, the importance of the European Commission presenting studies assessing the impact of the GSP in the beneficiary countries. I think, however, that this study should focus on the purely trade aspects and not cover other areas that do not fall under the scope of this regulation.

Finally, I would like to point out, echoing the Chairman of the committee himself, Mr Markov, that our amendments strengthen the role of the European Parliament in the application of the regulation. What is being considered in the regulation is the future role of the European Parliament in trade policy once the Lisbon Treaty has been adopted, as I hope it will be.

  Erika Mann (PSE ). – Mr President, I should just like to make one very brief point to the Commissioner. The Commissioner rightly mentioned that GSP+ is about sustainable development and it is connected, as the Chairman of the Committee on International Trade said, to the Millennium Goals. This is very important and I remember very well, when we discussed this kind of scheme for the first time, that we said we needed to evaluate and re-evaluate how valuable it is for the countries and for ourselves.

There is one topic to which I would very much like to draw your attention, which might become a complicated and tricky one in the future, concerning those countries that are operating within the scheme but which have a complicated environment. For example, Sri Lanka, which would love to fulfil the goals, but because of many conditions – and I do not want to go into the details – might not be capable of doing so.

I am not arguing that we should change our system. I would just ask the Commission – as my colleague Kader Arif has already done – to be very careful in evaluating each individual case. I would ask you to come back to our committee and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs when you have carried out the evaluation and then please come back to this House, and let us have an evaluation and a discussion on the topic I mentioned.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE-DE ). – (SV) Let me begin by saying that I think the Generalised System of Preferences is an extremely good instrument for development, because it binds together trade and development in a very clear manner and gives tariff concessions and hence access to European markets to those countries which make an effort. It is also important that we do use it as a development tool.

Now this is a technical review, and it is important that we do not exacerbate matters for those who need development aid most but, on the contrary, strengthen the development dimension. I think that in many ways this review does that in an excellent way and it advances the tool in the right direction, but it does not really go the whole distance.

I think for example of Vietnam. Vietnam is heavily dependent on a single product group, namely shoes. As you no doubt know, the GSP system has a threshold value which says that a country must achieve over 50% of the value of its exports in order to be guaranteed GSP status. At the moment Vietnam falls below 50%. That is because of us, because of Europe – we must be aware of that – and because we have penalised Vietnam with tariffs on shoe exports in particular. Regardless of this, they continue to be heavily dependent on their shoe exports, not least poor women in Vietnam.

So I wonder: why can they not keep their preference? It is after all only 3.5%. It is not the case that they lose, that they get entirely tariff-free access; they just get somewhat lower tariffs. Besides, in the future we shall have a free trade agreement with Vietnam. So I wonder: why throw them out now when we are about to take them in and absorb these exports through a free trade agreement?

I therefore hope that you will look at this during the next period of application, so that no country ends up in this situation, in this limbo into which I think we are putting Vietnam in the GSP system.

  Francisco Assis (PSE ). – (PT) The Generalised System of Preferences has proved to be a key trade policy instrument for promoting development and eradicating poverty in the world’s most fragile countries and regions through their progressive integration into the international trading system.

As has already been said here, the European Union has three types of arrangements aimed at promoting such development. For the most part, the mechanisms in force work well but they could, of course, be honed further and the European Parliament must actively participate to make sure that this fine-tuning does in fact occur. In the main, this report clearly aims at this.

The proposals it contains on such important issues as reform and clarification of rules of origin appear to be very relevant, in terms of promoting the principle of regional aggregation, assessing the impact of the outcome of the current Doha Round negotiations and the call for more technical assistance for the least developed countries so that they can benefit fully from this aid.

All these concerns point in one direction: making these instruments more useful to the poorest countries, thus contributing decisively to achieving their ultimate goal of fighting backwardness, poverty and the absolute injustice that are still brought about in the world by underdevelopment.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE ). – Mr President, like many of my colleagues in the House today, I welcome the amendments that are intended to improve the Commission’s proposals in line with the rapporteur’s proposals. It is not often on the Committee on International Trade that we can say that, and that we have that sort of consensus across the parties. His proposal is to produce a more effective system that better responds to the interests of beneficiary countries, to develop rules for a better regulated reform process, to ensure that regulation is in line with democratic control and parliamentary scrutiny, to bring the GSP scheme into line with the WTO and the Doha Round, and also to improve the transparency of GSP.

In this spirit, I would like to urge my colleagues to support a cross-party global campaign calling for real trade, of which I am the co-chairman with Abdi Abdirahman, the Speaker of the East African Legislative Assembly. We call for five things: let us abolish agricultural subsidies; let us abolish agricultural tariffs; let us liberalise rules of origin; let us stop supporting corrupt governments through direct budgetary support and place more emphasis on aid for trade, so that we can invest in things like infrastructure; and let us incentivise low-income countries to remove barriers between each other.

However, we should also call on governments of poorer countries to consider doing the same for basic essentials. It is morally wrong for poor people to pay more for food and medicines because of government import tariffs. Yes, the EU should open up its markets, but this good work is often undermined if other governments restrict access and keep prices high purely for ideological reasons.

So, we should all work together to fight trade tariffs that condemn the poor. We should end government subsidies that incentivise tyranny, and we should always be a friend of those who want to work their way out of poverty, because with our help they will end world hunger.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE ). – (CS) Mr President, today we are debating a change in the preferential rates of customs duties for developing countries for the next three years. I fully support Mr Helmuth Markov’s call for greater flexibility in his report. Mrs Quisthoudt-Rowohl’s amendments are important. The European Commission must undertake a far more detailed analysis of the impact of generalised tariff preferences on the economies of developing countries, and examine their effect on the European economy and on consumer protection. It is not just the GSP but also non-tariff measures, humanitarian aid or – on the contrary – sanctions in respect of serious violations of human rights or international agreements that affect the development of the poorest countries. Consequently, we must insist on serious and in-depth analyses of the impact of all these measures on developing countries: only when we have the results should we modify the tariffs, in a more flexible manner than today. This should not be an isolated process. The modifications should go hand in hand with all the other measures. We should also improve the way in which our development policy is coordinated with the US and other countries.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN ). – (PL) Mr President, if the objective of our actions is the reduction of poverty in third countries and economic integration, then the European Union’s tariff preferences programme really is the right way to go about it. We must at the same time remember that it is essential to strive for maximum transparency in the customs system.

This is why I believe it is necessary to monitor this process, and at the end of each stage it would be worth taking a look here in this House, in successive debates, at the results of the solutions currently being implemented.

  Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission . − Mr President, I am impressed by the intriguing questions of the honourable Members, especially the fact that nearly every one is critically constructive. All are involved in the whole procedure and doing their utmost to make it a good proposal.

I can assure you that Peter Mandelson will pay attention to your input – there is no doubt about that – and that he will take the amendments seriously and not ignore them. I know Peter a bit better. He is not the kind of person who would ignore such proposals and such thoughts, but he would like to look at it from both sides – helping developing countries (especially the least developed, as Mr Kaczmarek mentioned) is what he has in mind. However, the aim is to be both objective and predictable.

Regarding Mrs Mann’s invitation to come back (and I am sure she is asking for Peter Mandelson to come back, although I would be delighted to come back), I am sure he will take up the invitation.

Mr Ó Neachtain put it in a wider perspective, and I am pleased with the Geneva WTO discussions. Peter Mandelson will not be surprised at the views of the honourable Member. And Mr Kamall urged that we do our utmost and be a friend to those who want to work. I thank you again for all the proposals.

The draft is in Council, where the Member States will reflect on Parliament’s amendments to ensure that stability guidelines for the GSP are established for 2005-2015.

What is the reason leading the Commission not to introduce significant changes? After one year of operations it is too early to make conclusive observations, but this is something we will no doubt come back to.

Concerning the questions by Mr Kaczmarek and Mr Audy: the ultimate objectives of the scheme are indeed education and the eradication of poverty. At the same time, the EU provides an incentive for sustainable development, good governance and human rights, as well as labour standards and child labour in particular.

Concerning aid: the GSP tariff preferences provide market access to developed countries. Aid programmes are governed under the EU Joint Aid for Trade strategy which, among other objectives, claims to enable developing countries to benefit from the GSP.

Mrs Mann and Mr Fjellner mentioned Sri Lanka. At the moment Sri Lanka benefits from the GSP+. There are no indications that it would stop benefiting from GSP arrangements in the future. Each and every country’s situation is assessed carefully, transparently and following the provisions of the regulations. One question asked that the application process of the GSP+ scheme be more frequent than once every three years – I have already touched upon this – so let us make a deal that it should be flexible but we should not just stick to one year.

Mrs Mann asked how the application for the GSP+ will be assessed. The monitoring and evaluation of compliance with the eligibility requirements of the GSP+ arrangement is based on the findings of the monitoring mechanisms established under the auspices of the relevant international organisation, such as the UN and ILO and other agencies, as well as on the monetary mechanism emphasised in the conventions themselves and made publicly available by these agencies. This provides for unambiguous and impartial review processes.

I would like to answer Mr Arif’s question on the situation of the Commission in GSP+ beneficiary countries in terms of the implementation of human rights conventions and the correlative standards. I can assure you that the Commission is following closely the developments of the current GSP+ beneficiaries in respect to their compliance with the GSP+ relevant international conventions.

I shall just mention the example of El Salvador (which is a GSP+ beneficiary country, as you are aware), with regard to which the Commission, in consultation with EU Member States, has recently launched an investigation into its compliance with GSP+ obligations. I can assure you that the proper implementation of the EU trade arrangements is one of the Commission’s priorities. We pay close attention to the GSP+ beneficiaries’ compliance, and these issues are regularly raised in our bilateral contacts with those countries.

Concerning the new GSP rules of origin and how they will contribute to the GSP objectives: they are currently being discussed in the context of a general broad reform of the rules of origin. The Taxation and Customs Union DG is chef de file , so that concerns my colleague Mr Kovács. The aim is to render them more development-friendly, and that process is governed in consultation with the developing countries.

The last point concerns shoes in Vietnam, which was one of the examples. The exclusion – or graduation, for it is fair to use that word of Vietnamese products falling under section 12 (I am now talking about the footwear of the combined nomenclature from the benefits under the proposed GSP regulation for the years 2009-2011) – is being given full attention by all the relevant Commission services. The Commission has also been in close contact with Vietnam on this issue in order to provide all necessary assistance and expertise.

Concerning the graduation of Vietnam in relation to Section 12, this results from the technical and objective application of the GSP provisions and reflects the fact that Vietnamese exports of these products are more competitive on the Community market. In addition, Vietnam has successfully diversified its export base. That is a positive point and means that footwear is no longer so dominant. That is another, significant sign of increasing competitiveness. So the COM proposal for the graduation of Vietnam is based on extensive objectives and statistical analyses applied in the same way to all GSP+ beneficiaries.

  Helmuth Markov, rapporteur . − (DE) Mr President, we could say that there was major agreement in this House over the fact that the GSP+ system is a very positive one. I would, of course, have been happy to ask the Commission or Mr Mandelson, who is not here, however, how he would in fact be pressing the Andean countries, for example, two countries that very much want to retain GSP, to conclude free-trade agreements as part of the Partnership and Association Agreements. Ecuador and Bolivia want to retain this GSP+. We shall then be able to get involved with it. It will indeed get them somewhere.

The second question is whether or not we should be considering developing the GSP+ system further into a GSP++. The challenges ahead of us are entirely new. We have climate change, we have rising food prices. We could perhaps consider whether to introduce new paragraphs and new assessment standards. I am very happy, Commissioner, that you have made some very clear statements on Sri Lanka, because this was also my Committee’s concern, and Mrs Mann has carried this out with determination once again.

Finally, my thanks once again to all those with whom I needed to work. We enjoyed good cooperation. I think that we are a small step further ahead and that this GSP+ system is very valuable and necessary as part of the European Union’s trade agreement. I also think that we do not always have to concentrate solely on free-trade agreements.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Rovana Plumb (PSE ), in writing. – (RO) From its settlement, SGP was one of the main tools of EU trade and development policies. The main objective of the EU and SGP development policy is to contribute to poverty reduction, the promotion of sustainable development and good governance, principles that are recognised by international conventions and tools, such as the Millennium Declaration, Rio Declaration - 1992, OIM-1998 Declaration.

With the application of SGP in 1971, the EU facilitated international trade with the developing countries and the less developed countries, providing them the necessary technical assistance for observing the international conventions and building the necessary institutional and regulation framework so as to take advantage of international trade and SGP. At the same time, following the verified notification, and after EP notification, the CE may apply the sanction of temporary withdrawal of the preferences of those countries that violate the inclusion criteria in the beneficiaries’ list.

The report underlines the importance of the public consultation process, the involvement of the target beneficiaries and the consolidation of the EP democratic control.

Because both SGP and the list of beneficiary countries are revised every three years, the Council is asked not to delay their submission so that they might be approved by the EP, avoiding the gaps in international trade.

I congratulate the rapporteur.

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0175/2008 ) by Alain Hutchinson, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2007 (2007/2180(INI) ).

  Alain Hutchinson, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report I prepared for the Committee on Development reviews the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in 2007. Those of you who are actively involved in this work or are simply interested in it know that it is not a purely formal or symbolic structure, indeed quite the reverse, since the Assembly increasingly functions as a true parliamentary assembly. Its members are increasingly engaged in it, influential figures sound it out and as a result it is acquiring growing political importance. This is the first point that I wanted to emphasise.

The growing political importance of this Assembly also derives from the fact that apart from the fundamental issues relating to cooperation between ACP and EU countries, it also discusses issues which are topical both for Europeans and ACP countries. This is the case, for example, with the Economic Partnership Agreements negotiated between the Union and ACP countries. On this issue, the JPA has confirmed with the Kigali Declaration that the leaders concerned clearly want the European Commission to give ACP countries enough time to negotiate regional development agreements. Kigali is not only an opportunity to show that there is real resistance to these agreements, as they currently exist, but also that this resistance is founded on concerns which are entirely legitimate and which must now be properly taken into account.

In the same way, it is only through participating in the work of the Assembly that many MPs in ACP countries have learnt of the existence of Country Strategy Papers that define areas of cooperation between the EU and their own countries. This serves as a reminder that, for many MPs in ACP countries, the Assembly is sometimes the only possible forum for democratic expression.

I would also like to stress that in 2007 we witnessed the increasing engagement of civil society in ACP countries, with excellent meetings and initiatives being organised on the sidelines of each JPA session. In the fight for development by civil society in ACP countries, the Assembly also represents an extraordinary opportunity for exchange and encounter. In this respect, the Union must be able to support, technically and financially, the presence of these associations and NGOs in the work of the JPA.

Finally, I would like to underline that in our report, we encourage the JPA to strengthen the role of its Committee on Political Affairs. The idea behind this is to make it a true forum for conflict prevention and settlement and to encourage close collaboration between the activities of ACP and EU parliamentarians as election observers within the framework of EU election observation.

You should also know that in 2007 the Assembly met in Wiesbaden, and then in Kigali. Nine resolutions were adopted. The standing committees met four times: twice on the sidelines of the sessions and twice in between those sessions, in Brussels. These committees, which are in charge of following up the resolutions, have since 2007 organised the hearing of the responsible committee members in the corresponding areas.

Apart from several reports, the Wiesbaden session adopted a resolution on the situation in Darfur. There was a very constructive urgent debate on the situation in Zimbabwe. The workshops on immigration, climate change and medicines for neglected diseases all attracted a great number of participants and great interest. The Kigali session adopted three resolutions contained in the reports by the Standing Committees, Committees and two urgent resolutions on natural disasters in the ACP countries and the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Mr President, Commissioner, there you have it. I have briefly summarised a formal report that I wanted to give a political content, in order to help explain and more effectively support the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

  Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission . − Mr President, thank you very much, but I can assure you that I am really enjoying it here and I know that my dear colleague regrets very much that he cannot be here for this discussion. This exchange of views is very close to his heart, but I can assure you he is not wasting his time: he is travelling to an important meeting outside Brussels.

The Joint Parliamentary Assembly is a unique institution. Mr Michel is my neighbour in the college meeting and this morning he explained everything to me about the functioning of the Assembly, so now I can claim to know a little bit about that.

He mentioned that the JPA is where the spirit of partnership that lies at the heart of the Cotonou Agreement can be witnessed directly, as 156 elected representatives from the European Union and from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries discuss together the core issues of their cooperation. That is real North-South dialogue, a dialogue on the basis of equality and mutual respect, going beyond the traditional recipient-donor relationship. That is the parliamentary embodiment of ownership and control.

Over the past years the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has become increasingly parliamentary in stature and in conduct, reflecting the maturity of the cooperation between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Those debates are more open and regional conflicts less frequent. That is indeed a worthwhile achievement.

The Assembly has indeed become a framework for an open political dialogue, showing itself capable of discussing issues of great sensitivity and major political relevance such as good governance, access to healthcare and the impact of foreign direct investment, the migration of skilled workers and the Economic Partnership Agreements.

The excellent report of Mr Hutchinson and the Committee on Development presents this evolution eloquently and on behalf of Mr Michel and myself I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work. It presents the achievements and the challenges and explores the possibilities of future development.

One achievement was the leading role that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly played in the monitoring of the EPA negotiations, ensuring a two-way information flow thanks to the discussions with the chief negotiators and with my dear colleague Mr Michel on this matter during the year.

Another important leap has been the transmission by the Commission to the Assembly of the Country and Regional Strategy Papers. That demonstrates the confidence in the capacity of the Assembly to play a more political role and provides an opportunity to show further signs of maturity.

In order to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, Commissioner Michel asked the Commission Delegations to transmit these strategy papers also to the Speakers of the national parliaments via the National Authorising Officer of the EDF in the beneficiary countries. As you are aware, the Commission cannot transmit them directly since according to the Cotonou Agreement the NAO is our official contact point for all questions of programming and of EDF implementation.

At the same time, the JPA secretariat has also been transmitting these documents to the representatives of the respective countries in the JPA. We thus have reason to believe that the national parliaments are informed and can take their part in the monitoring and control of development programmes.

It is true that the capacity of national parliaments to play their role fully in the preparation and execution of the EDF is often limited. That is why the EDF finances institutional support in many ACP countries.

Beyond the scrutiny of Country Strategy Papers, the best way to ensure parliamentary control of EDF funds is to put in place general or sectoral budget support programmes. In this way the external funds are completely integrated into the national budgetary procedure where national parliaments play a key role. That is one of the reasons for the Commission’s decision to attribute about 45% of the 10th EDF to budget support programmed in 44 countries, compared to just 25 at the start of the 9th EDF, so there is an upward trend.

Lastly, let me take this opportunity to add my congratulations to the Government and Parliament of Rwanda and to the German Presidency for their excellent organisation of last year’s Assembly sessions.

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

  Filip Kaczmarek, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Hutchinson and congratulate him on his report, which is very good. I share the rapporteur’s opinions, observations and satisfaction concerning such issues as the deeper involvement of members of the Assembly in its work, the quality of debates and the more relevant nature of these debates. I agree that the greater involvement of non-governmental organisations in the work of the Assembly is a very positive phenomenon.

Meanwhile, I cannot remain silent about a couple of sadder aspects arising from observation of the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly. I think it is a great shame that during the discussions, debates and negotiations on joint projects between the ACP side and representatives of the European Parliament, not all subject areas are tackled with an equally deep dialogue and desire to find a common position. My impression is that the ACP side concentrates more on economic matters, devoting less attention and involvement to political matters.

In 2007 unusual enthusiasm and determination was displayed in discussions of an economic nature, primarily in negotiations relating to economic partnership agreements (EPAs), and of course there is nothing wrong with that. It is, however, hard to perceive an equally strong motivation to resolve difficult but important political problems. Mr Hutchinson recalled that we had debated the situation in Zimbabwe, yet there was no resolution. This trend of not adopting resolutions is still continuing, though. This year we held a debate on Chad; a compromise text of a resolution was adopted, but the resolution itself was thrown out by our ACP partners.

It seems to me that our goal should be to achieve more of a balance between economic and political goals. I appreciate that it is sometimes easier to concentrate on economic matters, as they seem more significant and easier to develop politically. Our European side should, however, concentrate on showing that there can be no continuing development without peace, stabilisation, human rights, the rule of law and better management.

  Marie-Arlette Carlotti, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate Mr Hutchinson on his excellent report.

In 2007 we had confirmation of both the rise and relevance of the role of the JPA on the principal challenges of the North-South dialogue. Regarding political crisis situations, for example, our urgent debates have allowed an in-depth constructive dialogue free from taboo on issues such as Haiti, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia. The introduction of the JPA regional meetings, the first of which may have been in Namibia, I believe, will help to further deepen this political dialogue.

On the implementation of the EDF, Country and Regional Strategy Papers have been submitted to ACP governments since the end of 2007. The JPA must now adopt a strategy and a working method to guarantee the best follow-up and supervision of the use of these funds.

On the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), through its discussions and meetings with economic leaders and members of civil society, through its open political dialogue with our parliamentary colleagues in the South, the JPA made EPAs a political priority in 2007. The Kigali Declaration, which Mr Hutchinson mentioned earlier, is an illustration of this.

I am sorry that the European Parliament dismissed this declaration, despite it being negotiated and voted on unanimously by representatives of the various political groups there. It would seem that, for some, a position adopted in Africa is sometimes harder to implement when we get back to Europe.

I am also sorry that the European Commission is ignoring the views of ACP MPs within the JPA and that it prefers a bulldozer approach by which it refuses to consider any renegotiation or reorientation of the EPAs. The proposal for the creation of a new parliamentary body under the Caribbean agreement simply adds to the confusion.

Finally, I cannot get over the fact that in 2007 Official Development Assistance from the whole of the EU fell for the first time since 2000. It is my belief that in terms of international solidarity, what matters most is keeping our word, and several Member States – including mine – are not keeping theirs. In 2008, the JPA should vigilantly and resolutely continue the fight for EPAs, lobbying for a proper renegotiation of interim agreements – for those who want it – in accordance with the promise made by Commissioner Barroso, and for the 10th EDF, which is now entering its active implementation phase, but which risks seeing its appropriations diverted to finance EPAs.

The JPA is a unique forum and a unique tool for North-South dialogue. It is an opportunity for fair, sustainable and joint development. My colleague Mr Hutchinson has already said all of this, and I would like to congratulate him once more.

  Juan Fraile Cantón (PSE ). – (ES) Mr President, I will begin by congratulating Mr Hutchinson on clearly setting out in his report the work done by the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in 2007.

The Assembly is becoming the strongest pillar of cooperation between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. I would like to point out that it is the only international assembly that regularly brings together the elected representatives of various countries in order to promote North-South interdependence.

The JPA has led the way with economic partnership agreements, which are tools for the regional development and integration policy for the ACP countries and a means of progressively including them in the global economy in a sustainable way.

However, economic partnership agreements (EPAs) cannot be negotiated simply as free trade agreements. My group insists on the possibility of renegotiating issues in these agreements such as services, intellectual property and the ‘Singapore issues’: investments, powers and public markets, as well as employment and social regulations and other issues relating to sustainable development.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my compliments to Mr Hutchinson on his work and on the report’s political approach, which I can endorse. I welcome the choice of the path of dialogue and cooperation.

I would like to stress one point. In order to respond to the needs of the people of the ACP countries and to achieve the ambitious millennium development goals, it is necessary for the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) on a national and regional basis to be increasingly open to democratic participation and monitoring. I therefore confirm that the commitments that we made in Kigali at the 14th session of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly are central to our actions.

I also welcome the reference to the need, when negotiating and applying the new agreements, to take into due account the protection and defence of democratic bodies and human rights. Our efforts cannot and must not be reduced to mere economic aid.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN ). – (PL) Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mr Hutchinson on an excellent report.

It seems to me important for us to look at the significance of contacts of this type between parliaments, between groups of parliaments and between the European Parliament and both the ACP countries and EuroLat in the context of world dialogue. I feel that this is the form that should predominate in our contacts. What is established between governments is of a rather different nature. The dialogue that takes place between parliaments is a much broader dialogue; it contains broader debates, and it seems to me that it better reflects the interests and concerns of the countries taking part in such dialogue, so this type of dialogue seems to me to be particularly valuable. Also important are the political aspects that we would like to maintain, namely the matter of keeping the peace, the observance of human rights and the functioning of a civil society.

  Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission . − Mr President, I have listened with great interest to the speeches that have been made by the honourable Members. I do not think it is appropriate for the Commission to react to or interfere with your agenda and your priorities, so I shall not mention yet what the thoughts of our side are. It is up to you.

On the issue of reopening negotiations, it must be quite clear that the interim agreements are the only way to preserve the trade flows after the deadline of 1 January 2008, and they cannot be reopened. However, the discussion, and hence the negotiation towards full EPA – regional and with full coverage – is ongoing.

  Alain Hutchinson, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your answers and comments. I would just like to point out that effectively, the JPA is a matter for MPs, but that the Commission plays an important role ,of course, in development policies at European level, and on that basis it is my wish that the Commission should not consider – and I think that Commissioner Michel, in any case, is included here – the work of this Assembly as anecdotal work, that it should not consider this Assembly as a sort of safety valve where the tensions between us are discussed, but rather that it takes into account the opinions expressed there, since for many of our ACP colleagues, this is unfortunately the only forum where they are able to express themselves.

In this respect, I would like to point out that so far you have observed that there has been no debate in ACP parliaments either on EPAs or Country Strategy Papers. Even though we are supporting the people’s elected representatives – financing elections left right and centre, trying to export our democratic model – we do not have time to consult these elected parliaments, and some of your colleagues, as Mrs Carlotti said, are adopting a bulldozer approach to everything. I hope therefore that the Commission can really take account of this work and recognise how excellent it is.

People have congratulated me on my report. I would like to thank my colleagues, and I would also like to congratulate Mrs Kinnock, who is not here because as Co-President of the Assembly, she is in fact somewhere in the Caribbean. I would like to congratulate her on the exceptional work that she does as Co-President of this Joint Assembly.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE ), in writing. – (DE) A good relationship between the European Union and the ACP countries is very close to my heart and I am therefore delighted that the ACP/EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly continues to take on a more political form and quality.

In negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreement and very generally in cooperation between the EU and ACP countries, subjects such as sustainable development, human rights, democracy and the creation of functioning constitutional systems must all definitely be on the agenda.

On no account should we disregard environmental protection and specifically the fight against climate change. Even in the regions of the ACP countries, the effects of climate change could turn out to be disastrous.

The EU must set a good example here and meet the aims and obligations of 2007. Only then can we expect this from the ACP countries as well.

Another subject we definitely have to deal with is water. Water shortage and drought are a major problem in the ACP countries, for which solutions have to be found so that there is no environmentally induced migration.

  President. − The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

- A6-0185/2008 by Gianni Pittella, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on Competition: Sector inquiry on retail banking

(2007/2201(INI) );

- A6-0187/2008 by Othmar Karas, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Green Paper on Retail Financial Services in the Single Market (2007/2287(INI) ).

  Gianni Pittella, rapporteur. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the careful investigative work carried out by the European Commission, we have been able to put the rigidity that is characteristic of retail banking services under the spotlight. This investigative work is one to which we have dedicated ourselves, alongside Mr Karas, and so far it has enjoyed a very broad, and in fact nearly unanimous, consensus in the relevant committee. I would therefore like to take the opportunity to express my particular thanks to Commissioner Kroes for the way in which she has always been available for debate with Parliament on this delicate matter.

The relationship between consumers and banks in Europe remains complicated because of the distortions that are a feature of the sector. This relationship is, however, of fundamental importance and we ought to put it right by pointing out inadequacies and inefficiencies, identifying the main problems and possible approaches for solving them. As my report and the report by Mr Karas state, actions of this type ought above all to be directed towards facilitating consumer mobility, so as to push the banks, indirectly, to operate at higher standards of efficiency.

That is why, in my report, I ask for it to be made simple and inexpensive for consumers to change banks. Changing banks is still, in too many cases across Europe, a slow and difficult operation. We are also opposed to any sort of contractual tie that is not clearly necessary, that prevents or hinders customer mobility. We recommend that the European banking industry should improve the procedures for closing current accounts, and that only fully justifiable charges should be made, ensuring that this service takes place swiftly and that costs are not duplicated.

We also call on the Commission to act to ensure that the banks supply information of a better quality that is more easily accessible to consumers, through an information pack set out under cost headings, in a format that enables comparisons to be made easily. I myself hold a current account at a bank, and when information packs arrive at my house I throw them away because they are not comprehensible; the same goes for millions of citizens like me. This can no longer be accepted. Mrs Kroes, Mr McCreevy, if the banks do not make moves in line with these suggestions I call upon the European Commission to put forward a legislative proposal on this point.

I also ask for an assessment to be made of the feasibility of a European Internet search engine, enabling customers to compare the services offered by different bank sites. We need to be able to click on a computer, access the Internet and have an IT platform that enables us to say: here is a better choice for me. Today we do not have these options available.

On the other hand, ‘interchange fees’ are another matter. With regard to the position taken by the European Commission on this debate, I have made a proposal: that once and for all criteria should be given to the operators, by means of some kind of guideline, for establishing the method for calculating interchange fees, in such a way that the proper and transparent operation of the sector can be guaranteed.

I will end here, so as not to go over my four minutes. I hope that with regard to these proposals, that I hope Parliament will adopt tomorrow morning, the Commission will provide an immediate follow-up, that is, at least, speedy and specific.

  Othmar Karas, rapporteur . − (DE) Mr President, Commissioners, Mr Pittella, first of all I should like to emphasise once again that the Commission proposals, Members’ aims and demands in the two reports and the effects of these reports on Europe’s citizens deserved a better time for debate and a bigger audience.

Secondly, with these reports and the debate with the Commission we are initiating the next stage in strengthening supply and demand in the financial services sector. I should like to thank Mr Pittella, Mr Schmidt and Mrs Starkevičiūtė for their effective cooperation. The broad majority in committee has shown that we have moved closer together yet have been making further demands.

What do we want? We want to continue developing the internal market for retail financial services and turn it into a domestic market for all consumers and small- and medium-sized enterprises. I say this even though I know that the retail market is and will remain more of a local business than a global business. Nevertheless, there is great potential, since only 1% of EU consumers purchase cross-border financial services via distance communication methods, while this figure is at least 26% inland.

There are – as the reports by the Commission and Parliament state – unjustified obstacles, despite differing responsibilities, which does not mean that in the past nothing would have happened. I should like to point out that since 1988, the liberalisation of the movement of capital within Europe has continued. The introduction of the euro has brought benefits to the buying public and to the economy: the Financial Services Action Plan, the White Paper on Financial Services Policy 2005-2010 and SEPA, the Single European Payment Area – consumers and suppliers benefit from this political development. This is not the end, but we are moving purposefully along the path.

Both of the Commission’s reports – like ours too, perhaps – do of course have their weak points. One of these can be found in the Green Paper where it talks almost exclusively of consumers. This concerns the internal retail market as well as SMEs. Furthermore, consumer protection measures alone are still not able to encourage any suppliers – and we know this – to go beyond the borders. When you examine the sectors, the weak point without doubt is the fact that we draw only on a small amount of data. We suspect a potential market foreclosure based on prices alone.

In our report we therefore ask the Commission to carry out a proper impact study, which must also include a component correctly ascertaining the original market conditions and assess the integration and competitiveness of the market and the impact of an initiative not just by means of one indicator but by the largest possible number of measurements.

We do, however, also support the Commission in its aim only to pursue initiatives that demonstrably offer citizens tangible benefits, are soundly justified by thorough cost-benefit analysis and have been subject to proper impact studies.

I could now highlight other weak points, but I should also like to limit myself to what we, too, have emphasised specifically in the reports. An important message from this Parliament is that we clearly recognise the decentralised sector. We need savings banks and cooperatives along with public limited companies. We need cross-border local champions, not just global champions. They are responsible for local service provision, economic development in the individual regions and security of supply. The second point is that we need a balance between supply and demand. Thirdly, we need harmonisation of the licensing and registration formalities. Insurance companies and banks working across borders are subject to supervision by several financial authorities. We should be harmonising here and creating equal entry requirements.

We should be expanding e-commerce. Promoting the remote connection of businesses must drive forward the use of a safe electronic signature and there should be a reform of the Money Laundering Directive wherever it conflicts.

Further points are addressed: agents and brokers are important for greater competition in the financial services sector. We need easier access to the credit data register and credit card registers and we need the block exemption regulation to be extended because we do not think cooperation distorts competition in this area if the conditions are clearly stipulated.

I am asking the Commission and my fellow Members to examine this report in its entirety and to adopt and support the other considerations – the 44 clarifications and measures in my report.

  Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission . − Mr President, it is a real pleasure for me to join you here today to talk about the Commission’s review of, and views on, the Pitella report.

But first let me congratulate both Mr Pitella and Mr Karas on a wonderful job and thank Parliament for its interest in this issue.

We share many views on this issue, and that is a good starting point. Along with my dear colleague Charlie McCreevy and the Internal Market and Services DG, my services and I have put much effort into being students of retail banking and, like you, we are asking ourselves what could be improved. It would of course be stupid to say that everything is perfect, so ‘What could be better?’ is our main line of approach to this issue.

In our sector inquiry the EUR 1 350 billion a year card-payment-systems market gained much of our attention. That is not coffee money – EUR 1 350 billion on a yearly basis. We also looked at improving credit registers, helpful and unhelpful cooperation between banks, and bank fees.

In response specifically to a key point in the Pittella report, I may conclude that we have many points of agreement and one point of difference. On customer mobility: the ball is now in the industry’s court. It needs to develop a code of conduct, and it may face legislation if it does not take this opportunity and this challenge.

On consumer information and transparency: price comparison and product disclosure information is critical for consumers. But industry heavily contests suggestions for change so I fear that there might not be any progress. My colleague Commissioner Kuneva is collecting evidence on retail banking fees as part of one of her Consumer Market Scoreboard follow-ups. She will certainly be able to assess the diversity and transparency of banking fees and the corresponding level of consumer awareness. This fact-gathering is the first step for change.

On credit registers I have good news. The first meeting of the expert group on credit histories is planned in September 2008, which is not long now. Experts should present their recommendations to the Commission by 1 May 2009.

Credit intermediaries, such as mortgage brokers, are a growth industry with many vulnerable customers, so the Commission’s study of them will be of great interest. The results of that study are expected to be available in October 2008.

Concerning cooperation between banks, the Competition DG is still doing further fact-finding for our sector inquiry, so it is too early for me to make detailed comments on this matter at this stage.

SEPA is still new, and competition is needed for it to function fully: I particularly agree with Parliament on this. But I am confident it is working as well as we could expect at this point.

The area where there seems to be disagreement – as mentioned earlier – is the request to the Commission to issue guidelines on Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs). I have to be honest with you and say that I am not convinced that creating guidelines would be the right move at this stage and, based on our experience in this matter, I shall try to explain why.

The call for guidelines and ‘clarity’ from the Commission – and I understand the question of the rapporteur and his team – is a predictable follow-on from our MasterCard case. However, that decision – the MasterCard decision – was based solely on the specific facts of that case. With only one case to base such guidelines on, we would risk making bad guidelines that undermine our efforts to help consumers (that is again something we have in common: we – Parliament and the Commission – want to help consumers). One case is not the basis of a magic solution.

Other reasons guidelines might not work are because there are payment card systems in the EU that operate with a MIF, and others without a MIF. Decisions about a card scheme’s business model and financing mechanisms should be taken by the schemes themselves. Obviously, the Commission cannot prescribe specific business models. The assessment of the MIF of a developed system like MasterCard and the assessment of a MIF which new entrants in the market may wish to apply in order to start competing are not necessarily the same. At this stage the Commission has only assessed the MIF in systems like Visa and MasterCard. In the new framework laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, it is the responsibility of the parties to assess the legality of their behaviour under EC competition rules.

A non-confidential version of the MasterCard decision is published on our website, so we are transparent and we are clear. The Commission’s assessment of the MasterCard MIF can be used by other payment card systems as guidance, even if the assessment in the decision relates to MasterCard’s MIF and not to all possible MIFs. But there is a suggestion I make to assist the market as this issue develops – that is a gesture from my side. My services stand ready to further discuss with market participants and all stakeholders, and indeed they are already in close contact with the payment industry on this matter.

But allow me conclude in a positive way. The Commission very much welcomes Parliament’s clear support for the need for measures to improve the level of efficiency and functioning of the retail banking sector, which remains fragmented along national lines.

I am committed to working with you to address the issue of the MIFs. I hope that we can just conclude that the future is ours.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission . − Mr President, let me congratulate the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and in particular Mr Karas and Mr Schmidt, for their excellent work in producing a thorough and consistent report.

I wholeheartedly welcome your broad support for our strategy on retail financial services, as well as the significant contribution you have made towards deliberations on a wide range of issues. It is not possible in the time allotted to provide our views on all of the issues covered in this extensive report. I would therefore like to focus on two issues of particular importance in the retail area, our consideration of the framework for retail investment products, and our work on bank account mobility.

Turning first to retail investment products. I am grateful for your support for our ongoing work to ensure that the regulatory framework for the sale of retail investment products delivers a consistently high level of investor protection. I am convinced that competition between retail investment products can deliver real benefits for consumers. However, we need to be confident that the sale of all investment products is accompanied by a high level of product disclosure and a point-of-sale discipline. Only this will ensure that consumers are treated fairly and can take decisions on an informed basis.

I welcome the clear position you have taken in your report on these issues. However, as you well know, I am not one to make decisions without first being fully convinced of the need for change. Harmonisation or streamlining of disclosure and distribution rules would be a costly and disruptive process. There may be objective reasons why some differentiation is needed between product types or distribution channels.

For these reasons, I believe it is far too early to conclude that there are deficiencies in existing investor protection regimes which call for new cross-cutting legislation. Later this year I will come forward with a communication consolidating the evidence gathered in our research. We will identify areas for further work, to examine, and address clearly, evidenced shortcomings in existing regulatory protections.

Turning now to bank account mobility. Creating a competitive and efficient market for bank accounts is a core element in our retail financial services strategy. Many consumers regularly face obstacles in trying to switch from one provider to another. This situation cannot be allowed to continue and we are therefore pleased to receive your support on this point.

I welcome your call for the financial services industry to work towards the aims of the Green Paper by self-regulation and thus reduce the need for binding legal acts. This reflects our commitment reiterated in the single market review to use, where appropriate or where they can deliver the desired outcome, self-regulatory measures rather than resort to legislation.

In this context, in November last year we invited the European banking industry to develop a European Code of Conduct by mid-2008. This code should contain a fully-fledged domestic switching service which should be made available to customers when they switch bank. The banking industry does not need to start from scratch. Rather, they should draw on existing best practices in some Member States.

Finally, delivery of a high quality code of conduct by the banking industry will be decisive in proving the merits of self-regulation. Let me be clear today. Should the code fail to meet the Commission’s expectations, alternatives, such as a legislative proposal, would have to be considered.

  Zuzana Roithová, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group . – (CS) Mr President, I welcome the report by my colleague Mr Karas, which deals with a very important subject, namely easy access to banking services for all citizens and businesses in the European Union. This will help to open up, or rather complete, our internal market. However, I would like to draw your attention to the very serious problem of high banking fees in many Member States. In some of these countries – and my own country, the Czech Republic, is one of the biggest culprits – these banking fees can be ridiculously high. This really calls for foreign competition. Only Poland fares worse than the Czech Republic. On the other hand, banking is cheaper in the Netherlands or in Austria, for example.

The instruments that can rapidly change this situation (and this also relates to the incredibly high fees for issuing credit cards) are in the hands of the Commission and Parliament. The elimination of obstacles to cross-border electronic banking would improve the situation for consumers and business customers, who would benefit from sound economic competition. Apart from the need to reduce banking fees and make them more transparent, it will also be necessary to concentrate on enhancing the quality of banking services and improving the financial knowledge of consumers as well as small and medium-sized businesses. Last but not least, the European Union will have to pay attention to the regulation of the so-called microcredit, which can give a significant boost to electronic (through not only electronic) trading. Ladies and gentlemen, it is in our hands.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner Kroes, Commissioner McCreevy, ladies and gentlemen, retail banking plays an essential role in the daily lives of families and of the vast majority of European businesses. It is of great economic importance, generates around 2% of the Community GDP, provides more than 3 million jobs and constitutes the largest banking sector, with gross revenue of more than 50% of the EU total.

In order to grasp its importance we can consider that one of its characteristic services, mortgages, constitutes the main financial risk taken on by European citizens, with outstanding balances of around 50% of the EU GDP, and that the volume of investment funds in the Member States is between 4 and 24% of domestic economies.

Despite the progress in the regulation of the sector and the improvements brought about by the introduction of the euro, the integration of the Community financial services markets and the promotion of competition in the sector do not appear to have achieved their full potential.

Only 1% of consumers in the European Union purchase cross-border financial services; there are considerable variations in prices between entities; the opportunities for choice are limited; there are still structural barriers that make it difficult to provide services and for those services to operate properly between different countries. The levels of profitability of retail banking vary widely, and establishments in the Nordic countries, Spain and Ireland are above average.

All of these issues are tackled in the reports in a reasonably balanced way. I congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Pittella and Mr Karas, and I would like to express my satisfaction at the ultimate inclusion of aspects such as the recognition of the role of retail banking in properly passing on monetary policy conditions to the market, the value that the plurality and diversity of models for trade with banks, cooperatives and savings banks brings to European retail banking, the existence of an environment of cooperation promoting competition between independent entities, the need for an appropriate framework for financial intermediaries and more comparability between financial products.

Improving the functioning of this banking sector will provide more efficiency, will help to develop the potential inherent in all the European regions and will facilitate access to financial services, along with greater compliance with the coverage terms for our citizens.

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) The main point of today’s debate is the question of what is to be done to ensure that EU citizens are able to make full use of the advantages offered by the single market in the financial sector, the latter being exceedingly fragmented. How can we tackle this problem? There are three possible ways. Firstly, by encouraging consumer mobility. How can this be achieved? Firstly, information on all available products should be standardised and transparency in relation to the cost of these retail financial products ensured, thus enabling the consumer to choose by employing certain methods – perhaps, as Mr Pittella suggested, an Internet search engine. We are not prepared to agree on the necessity of standardising all the products, as they should reflect social and cultural differences in the various countries. Therefore, standardisation should be clearly defined. In addition, we would enable consumers to open accounts in other countries. Now we have the Schengen area, which allows everyone to move from country to country without any problems, data registering is no longer an issue. However, banks have a problem with opening accounts for citizens of other countries. I believe this is unacceptable in the age of modern technology. I do not think these problems could be resolved simply through self-coordination, given the number of retail banks and the difficulties they encounter in coordinating their activities. Can the Commission suggest any initiative in this direction?

Another way would be to encourage the mobility of suppliers, enabling them to render their services via the Internet or by means of text messages. At any rate, financial governance must be sorted out beforehand, clearly defining who is responsible for what in case something goes wrong. I would like to finish by saying to Commissioner Kroes that we expect transparency from the Commission. As regards payment card costs, new costs are currently being introduced, preceding your suggestion. Consumers in the shops might not even be aware of increased costs, as the banks are in the process of adapting to new requirements. Perhaps information on payment card costs should be publicised on a wider scale and more often, enabling consumers to compare them and be more empowered in dealing with the banks.

  Roberto Fiore (NI ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is certainly a will within Parliament to harmonise the European banking world. I think, however, that families and small and medium-sized enterprises are particularly concerned, especially in my country, Italy, about certain practices which at the moment are undergoing tough and comprehensive scrutiny by the public.

I am talking, for example, about maximum overdraft fees and compound interest, which is interest on interest. These are practices which have entered into conflict with the constitutional court and the court of cassation. I do not understand, therefore, how people can talk of fee transparency or of clarity in the way in which fees are paid, when in a country such as Italy there are still such serious conflicts between banks and legal authorities.

The same goes for the flexibility of loans. At the moment there is particular concern about the fact that thousands or hundreds of thousands of families are facing serious problems regarding loan flexibility. I therefore think that Parliament ought above all to place the national banking world in line concerning fairer criteria.

  Harald Ettl (PSE ). – (DE) Mr President, both the Karas report and the Pittella report demonstrate that there is still a great deal to do for consumers in the sector of retail financial services such as bank accounts, loans and insurance. Banks, whose market volumes are influenced by retail business by up to 50%, are no longer interested in customer mobility and unfortunately only to a limited extent in transparent benchmarking. Even this essentially good, but often wrongly interpreted relationship of trust between banks and their customers has less of a link and contributes less to customer mobility and the promotion of competition.

Competition can itself therefore be adjusted primarily by enlightened and well-informed customers. In the end we have also included an EU budget line on financial market expertise in consumer and SME organisations. I simply wish to remind you of this.

In addition, consumer protection levels should not be impaired by the dismantling of barriers. Moreover, the demand for collective legal aid in cross-border lawsuits relating to financial products agreed in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is the appropriate endorsement for fair market conditions. In general, however, new financial products have to be introduced objectively and correctly.

The Commission is being asked to anchor regulatory requirements with regard to information, marketing and the organisation of comparable products for private customers in all the legal provisions of the financial market. The principles of the MiFID Directive on best advice should also be made to apply particularly, for example, to unit-linked life insurance and other long-term savings products. Helping the consumer, the customer, and thereby creating a flourishing market must be the principle by which we act.

  Wolf Klinz (ALDE ). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to express my thanks to Mr Pitella and Mr Karas for their reports. I share their conclusion permeating the entire report that every citizen in the European Union should have access to banking services. Nevertheless, please allow me three comments.

Firstly, with regard to customer mobility, yes, it is our aim in a growing, fully functioning internal market to make sure that every customer also has cross-border access to banking services. However, responsibilities are also bound up with this right. I am therefore somewhat cautious when the demand is made here that in the event that a customer informs his bank that he wishes to switch to another we leave the risk, if he does not have his new bank account details in time, with the present bank. This is not right! Customers should assume responsibility for their own actions and must also assume this responsibility personally with the rights they have assumed. We should not be toying with those who bail customers out whenever they are to blame for ending up in this dilemma.

Secondly, customer information. I can but agree here with the previous speaker, Mr Ettl. We still have to do this many times over in the case of comparable products in competition with each that do not have the same transparency because they are subject to different obligations to provide information. This is not right! I am very much in favour of customers obtaining information but it is also true here that we should not be throwing the baby out with the bath water and not inundating customers with too much information. Customers need the necessary information to make responsible decisions themselves, but quality takes priority over quantity here.

Finally, back to the banking structures. I agree with Mr Karas that we do in fact have different, historically developed banking structures in the individual Member States. In one country there are only private banks, in others there are also savings banks, credit unions, state banks and more of the same. It is not our job to reorganise the banking community. The Member States should be doing this – if they are not already doing so. Nor is it our job, however, to be carrying on traditions. I think the market should decide whether the structures remain as they are or whether they should be changed. Services, product ranges, services that individual market operators offer their customers – they should decide; we should not be making decisions centrally.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE ). – Mr President, I just wish to comment briefly on some of the debate.

The issue about educating the consumer is very important. We need consumers to understand financial services, and we need in particular to target young people who use credit cards like they were going out of fashion.

But let me just say that those of us who thought they were educated have been prone to the odd financial accident. I mean, hands up those of us who fell for endowment mortgages? I should put both hands up in that regard. Therefore, even with education and knowledge, mistakes are made and wrong products are sold to the consumer.

I am not sure how long the Commission is going to test out the codes of conduct before it legislates. I am not a fan of legislation where none is required, but sometimes we need better legislation that is effective from a consumer point of view. We have a credit crunch now and, where in the Irish banking system they were handing out money and 100% mortgages were the norm, we now have quite the opposite with the curtailment of finance. This is an issue that affects all of us and I hope that this debate contributes to better financial services for the European consumer.

  Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission . − Mr President, I should like to thank the honourable Members once again for their work on this issue. The point has been made that we need transparency and a clear overview of what is entailed for the consumer. Quality is more important than quantity, but sometimes you need a bit of quantity to get the quality.

The Commission very much welcomes your clear support for the need for measures. We are aware that we have to improve the level of efficiency, and that we have to improve the functioning of the retail banking sector, which remains fragmented along national lines. That is not in line with the single market that we all believe in. Therefore, the retail banking sector – which is an open door – is of key importance to all of us, to all the consumers and to the economy as a whole. Parliament’s report reflects the importance which you too attach to this area.

Mrs Roithová talked about the situation in her country but mentioned that it was not only in her country that the high fees are often the result of a fragmented market with only a few players. The situation we found in the sector inquiry report, which I have already touched upon, is quite clear.

We think, and we expect, that the introduction of SEPA will provide an answer to many of the problems, because it will facilitate cross-border competition, and that is what is needed. It is a pro-market approach and it should work. We are, therefore, very much behind this initiative and are working with the industry to help SEPA reach its goals. Mr Sánchez Presedo rightly said that promoting competition is key to this whole approach, because if there is no competition then we are all aware that the banks are trying to pull our legs.

On the actual cost of payment cards, which Mrs Starkevičiūtė asked about, we share the honourable Member’s wish for more transparency in the market. Pro-competition means that we should be aware of what is going on in the market, and the fact that it was not clear why consumers benefited from this was one of the reasons for prohibiting MasterCard’s interchange fees – that was clear-cut. Our aim is to see fees which have clear and verifiable benefits to consumers.

Mr Klinz rightly talked about rights, and these are always combined with responsibilities: not only of the customers but also of all of us – the banks and all the players in the game. We need more transparency, we need to be clear what we are picking out. The changes to the market are hopefully leading in that direction.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission . − Mr President, as I remarked earlier, the reports are excellent pieces of work. They are thorough and consistent and will provide a significant contribution to our ongoing work on retail and financial services.

I appreciate that some people might wish us to move faster on some of the initiatives, but speed does not always equate to equality. We are committed to our better regulation principles, including thorough impact assessments. Some of our initiatives, such as bank accounts, have been underway for several years and should bear fruit this year. Others, such as our work on retail investment projects, are a little newer and will require more research before we can reach any firm conclusions.

Mrs Roithová referred to bank changes and my colleague Neelie Kroes has dealt with that issue. I would just like to point out that we cannot regulate charges as such, but what we really need is real competition and the ability of consumers to easily switch from providers with which they are dissatisfied. Of course we want to make it easier for them to switch and to have a variety of players in the marketplace. That in itself will bring down prices. Mrs Margarita Starkevičiūtė raised a number of issues. I have noted all her suggestions and we will act on them as far as possible. Mr Ettl spoke about the retail banks. The Green Paper that we published precisely addresses some of these real concerns.

I usually agree with my friend Mr Wolf Klinz but, unless I misunderstood, I detected that he was not so anxious about the switching of bank accounts. What we are trying to do is allow consumers to switch bank accounts easily within Member States. I would just point out that it not rocket science. Other Member States have embarked upon codes of conduct and have done it quite easily. We have given the banking industry an opportunity to self-regulate in this particular area. I have met some of them. Some come up with all kinds of wonderful and wondrous excuses about why it cannot be done, but I can assure them that it is not astrophysics that we are dealing with. It is quite simple to operate and is an opportunity for them to prove that self-regulation is the better way. But, as I said in my earlier remarks, if we do not do this, there are other alternatives available to us.

However, I do agree with Mr Klinz’s second point about the bank structures in various Member States. These are entirely for each Member State to organise, and there are different banking structures in all of the Member States. A Member State itself can organise its structures in any way it wishes, but if it enters into the free market area, it must abide by the rules of the Treaty, and this could sometimes lead to conflict. However, the organisation of the banking structure in a Member State is solely a matter for the Member State concerned.

I agree with Mrs McGuinness regarding the operation of codes of conduct. She referred to the great phase of endowment mortgages. I was a little reluctant ever to go down that road myself and resisted it for years, but at one time, with another person, I allowed myself to avail of one of those. I was one of the lucky ones. I turned out at the end of the period of time with a profit, which was a surprise to me and to everybody else, given my earlier reluctance in that area.

However, I do not think that anybody could be blamed for the way endowment mortgages went. It was the fashion of the time. Everybody believed in doing it this particular way, and there was a fair amount of aggressive selling. But I think that, as long as the consumer is aware of many of the pitfalls, that is what codes of conduct or any type of consumer protection should do. I always say to people in business, whether they be in big or small businesses – and we should be aware as consumers – if a thing looks too good, it is too good.

  Gianni Pittella, rapporteur. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would quickly like to thank all the Members who have spoken, and thanks once again to the Commissioners and to Mr Karas.

I would like to say a swift word on interchange fees. My proposal for guidelines is based on the conviction – and of course here we may disagree, Mrs Kroes – that the interchange fee is useful for the development and the efficiency of the payment instrument. Also, in the absence of interchange fees there is a risk that the costs would be borne by consumers.

Moving on to the issue of what is the best approach on the regulation of financial markets, I believe – and I have often said so to Commissioner McCreevy – that under-regulated and poorly regulated financial markets and the frequently ineffectual self-regulation carried out by the banking industry are elements whose negatives effects have been clearly demonstrated by the current financial crisis.

I therefore believe that it would be wrong to think that the proper integration of the retail financial sector can be completed solely by means of self-regulation by the industry. The retail products financial market will only be able to call itself properly integrated once that degree of full harmonisation that the consumer protection rules aim to bring about has been achieved and guaranteed. This can best be done through a legislative initiative by the Commission.

  Othmar Karas, rapporteur . − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to reiterate the thanks I expressed at the outset to all those involved, and to ask the Commission to include Parliament’s proposals in full in its legislative deliberations.

The second point is a tip. I should like to point out to my fellow Members that the report on consumer education – we have spoken a great deal about this today – in the financial services sector is being debated in the House and will be discussed in plenary in the autumn.

Another point is that we should not forget that the different tax systems of the Member States are a major obstacle to the provision of cross-border financial services and that this also creates low interoperability, particularly where financial products are promoted for tax purposes. I also wish to appeal to the industry and the banks to carry out self-regulation in order to do the preliminary work for the objective of this Green Paper. On the issue of standardisation and product diversity, we also have to say yes to standardisation as long as it does not jeopardise product diversity. As regards bank charges, which Mrs Roithová has addressed, the Commission has already referred to SEPA.

However, we also have many other obstacles, namely the obstacle that rights earned in one country often cannot be transferred to another country and the obstacle that an account can be opened if the domicile is given. Then there is the missing definition of e-commerce: cross-border money transfers are working, but there are barriers when opening an account and to other rights, which we must remove. We have enough work to do to get proposals onto the table. We should be seeing results and continuing to work consistently.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE ), in writing. – (SK) A well-functioning integrated financial market is a necessary precondition for the realisation of the Lisbon agenda. Banks play an essential role in passing on monetary policy conditions, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises and consumers. Although many clients would be interested in using cross-border financial services, opening an account in a Member State bank is accompanied by so much bureaucracy that clients often get discouraged.

The European banking industry should improve and simplify its account closing procedures. Statements of account are still very complicated and many consumers do not understand them. The complexity of financial products makes it difficult for consumers to make informed decisions. Consumers are also burdened with disproportionately high banking fees for services and for the issue of credit cards.

I think that rather than regulating banking fees, the EU should ensure that the banking sector is competitive. Informed consumers are an essential component of economic competition among banks.

I believe that consumer organisations play an important role because they are able to define which information they deem to be necessary to enable consumers to make appropriate choices when it comes to banking products. They can coordinate financial education programmes aimed at increasing the awareness of consumers as regards their money management options. They also help very vulnerable consumers.

I believe that the time will come in the EU when consumer organisations will not be fighting for their survival. Once they become responsible for consumer policy, they will understand how important finances are.

  Katrin Saks (PSE ), in writing. – The Commission offers three strategies in the Green Paper on retail financial services to promote integration of the retail markets in financial services - lower prices and more choice, empowering consumers and enhancing consumer protection.

Firstly, I would like to focus on consumer empowerment and I would like to highlight the need to raise the level of financial literacy. At the recent consumer financial education hearing we saw a number of practical examples of consumer financial education programmes. Further efforts could be made to share best practices in this area across the Member States, bearing in mind the new Member States in particular.

Regarding consumer choice, it is clear that consumers who wish to change financial services providers must be able to do so with a minimum of costs and legal barriers.

As regards information given to the consumer, it is not enough to provide consumers with as much information as possible. Overloading the consumer with information will have the opposite effect. Nonetheless, sufficient information which helps the consumer to make informed choices has to be provided.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE ), in writing. – (RO) Pursuant to the Pittella report, the sector audit analysed the competition situation regarding payment systems, including card systems, credit offices, cooperation between banks and price and bank settlement policies. The audit shows that there are significant differences between the commission paid for bank cards. Thus, it was detected that the majority of national debit cards networks settle inter-bank commissions on a significantly lower level than the international networks, and that, in most of the Member States, the majority of banks permit the grant of mortgage credits, of personal credits and of loans to SMEs with the opening of a current account.

Usually, the client does not have the same negotiation power when initiating the contractual relation with the bank where he becomes a client. The client signs a contract that he does not always read and even if he does, he would like to suggest changes, which is not possible. From this viewpoint, I consider that the competent regulation authorities should supervise the form of the contracts offered by the banks so as to protect the interests of both the clients and the bank. I consider that it is compulsory that a client who opens an account to previously receive a brief presentation of the applicable costs for the entire period of its utilization.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

  President. − The next item is the report by Marie-Hélène Aubert, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (COM(2007)0602 – C6-0454/2007 – 2007/0223(CNS) ) (A6-0193/2008 ).

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission . − Madam President, first of all allow me to thank the rapporteur for her work on this report. I am pleased to note the strong support of the Committee on Fisheries on this important proposal to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.

As you know, IUU fishing constitutes a major threat to the sustainability of fish stocks and marine biodiversity, which undermines the very essence of the Common Fisheries Policy. I do not believe that it is necessary to expand any further on the disastrous global environmental and economic consequences of IUU fishing, as you are well aware of that. However, it is important to bear in mind that IUU fishing is a worldwide phenomenon, affecting in particular developing countries. This is why the proposal is a non-discriminatory instrument, applying to all Community trade of fishery products deriving from IUU fishing, in all waters, and to all Community nationals engaging in or supporting IUU fishing activities conducted under any flag.

International cooperation is the key to the efficient elimination of IUU fishing. This is why the Commission has already commenced bilateral contacts with third countries. The Commission has also defined a working programme, in close cooperation with the Development DG and EuropeAid, to support developing countries, in order to assist them with a smooth and successful implementation of the regulation, in particular with regard to the catch certification scheme. This working programme includes seminars and workshops in a large number of third countries.

The Commission can agree with nearly all amendments proposed, which are either covered by the proposal or which are incorporated in the Presidency compromise text.

I am extremely happy that the report supports, in particular, the implementation of the regulation to all vessels, its catch certification scheme and the harmonisation of sanctions.

The inclusion of Community vessels is an important feature which will ensure non-discrimination and consistency with WTO rules. It is also important that the Community demonstrates its seriousness in fighting IUU fishing activities, by including all vessels infringing conservation and management rules.

The catch certification scheme is the instrument which will ensure the control of traceability of fishery products. Inspired by current practices in Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and customs regulations, it must apply to all fishery products, including processed products, in order to be efficient. Aquaculture products and products with marginal Community trade will, however, be excluded from its scope. We can do this during final negotiations in Council.

Harmonised sanctions will strengthen the ability of Member States to take measures to prevent IUU activities and to ensure that any economic advantage will be more than offset by the fines imposed. The Commission strongly believes that a system of dissuasive, proportionate and harmonised sanctions and accompanying measures is the key to compliance with the regulation.

I would once again like to thank Mrs Aubert for the report and the committee for its attention on this very important issue. This report is a significant contribution to a truly efficient fight against IUU fishing.

  Marie-Hélène Aubert, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, the events unfolding this very day in Brussels show us to what extent the future of European fisheries is under threat if the European Union is incapable of implementing the sustainable management of fish stocks and root-and-branch reform of its existing policies. The fight against IUU fishing is a major element of this more demanding and coherent policy. However, the globalisation of trade, the free movement of capital, and advances in transport and communication have all led to a significant increase in illegal fishing over recent years.

Today the situation is no longer tenable. European fishermen, like all stakeholders, including NGOs, are unanimously calling for this phenomenon – which hastens the destruction of resources and results in unfair competition for those who play by the rules – to be tackled more effectively. However, that is not to say that Member States have not been able to monitor and sanction illegal practices, as they should have done. In this respect, the report of the Court of Auditors published a few months ago is damning.

This is why the European Commission’s ambitious proposal announced last October was particularly well received by the Committee on Fisheries, which had already adopted, by an overwhelming majority, an own-initiative report on the EU’s February 2007 action plan to combat IUU fishing. In fact, we are delighted that the Commission’s legislative proposal incorporates most of our recommendations. These include the publication of an IUU vessels list; reinforced port state controls; compulsory catch certificates for the flag state and therefore the refusal to import fisheries products obtained from IUU fishing into the EU; reinforced and harmonised sanctions, and a Community alert system. Therefore, there is not much missing from the Commission’s proposal.

However, as you know, three points have been the subject of a heated debate within the Council, particularly concerning the scope of the regulation. For my part, I am delighted that we have finally managed to secure the scope that you have proposed, which extends to both Community and third-country vessels. The catch certificate has also been considered too cumbersome or complex, and the level and nature of the sanctions have also been fiercely debated.

These issues were also raised within our committee. However, our amendments have, I think, finally helped to clarify the text while preserving the ambition and major goals of the new regulation. The report was adopted by unanimous vote and I would like to thank my colleagues for their support, which helped to secure this outcome. With a sector in crisis, the European Parliament wants to send out a very strong signal today, aimed particularly at the Council, which has been too slow to shoulder its responsibilities in this area.

Commissioner, the fight against IUU fishing is still only part of the wider policy including the Control Regulation and that of serious offences. This divide has not helped to clarify the proceedings, to say the least. We are still waiting for clarification from you on how these three new regulations are to be structured. Similarly, concerns over the complexity of the catch certificate are just an excuse to dilute or postpone the text. We need universally comprehensible procedures which can be operated by a sufficient number of reliable, efficient and competent staff, and are accessible to developing countries, who in any case are the main victims of IUU fishing. On this too we expect clarification and a commitment from you.

Finally, we are counting, Commissioner, on your resolve – which we know is considerable – to put a swift end to illegal fishing, which affects bluefin tuna and cod most of all, highly prized species which are heavily overfished at present. This at least would give a concrete response to the serious problems currently faced by the fishing industry. There is still a great deal of work to be done, as you know, to ensure a sustainable future for European fisheries. However, an important step will be taken in the coming weeks, and I am as pleased about this as you are.

  Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. − (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this debate is taking place during the most serious crisis in the Community fisheries sector that we have ever known.

There are various reasons why costs are not being covered in the sector and why it is currently not profitable to go out fishing. Fish imports and the entry of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing into the European Union are among those reasons. We therefore support the proposal and the report, but they are not sufficient.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak out in the European Parliament to ask the Commission and the Council to do something urgently, and not to allow this sector to die, as if it continues as it is now, it is going to collapse.

I ask the Commissioner and the Council to prepare and adopt a joint urgent emergency plan that also includes medium and long-term measures. France is leading this battle, and the imminent French Presidency is a golden opportunity to make it happen.

The Commission needs to exercise its right of initiative more actively — with aid, compensation, restructuring, innovations – in order to mitigate the costs that the sector is suffering from and curb unfair competition in imports. Time is running out.

We wanted the Committee on International Trade to be part of this debate, because there is little point in banning IUU fishing if the European Union then opens its markets to it.

Is it too much to ask for only legal fish to be sold in the European Union?

We need more controls, more traceability and more and better labelling, in short more guarantees of what is entering the European Union. This needs to be done not only by the European Union but globally, through multilateral and bilateral channels.

Partnership agreements should also be a tool for achieving this, with the corresponding technical assistance and training, in order to create not new barriers to trade, but rather measures that are effective for all the parties involved.

On this rests the future of a whole economic sector, which in the European Union is very concentrated in regions that are highly dependent on it, and therefore it has huge social repercussions.

On this also rests the sustainability of fisheries resources, which are a prime source of healthy food, at a time when there is a food crisis.

  Ioannis Gklavakis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, let me thank Mrs Aubert for her report.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is one of the main problems in the sector, for, most importantly, it greatly damages the environment, and this is a major problem for the planet. It distorts competition. Those who carry out illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing are in a more advantageous position than legal fishing operators, whom it is our duty to protect. Unreported fishing means a loss of revenue for the state.

One of the measures set out in the proposal for a regulation that we are voting on is the creation of a scheme of port state control that would prohibit access by third country vessels involved in illegal fishing activities. The proposal provides for a ban on the importation of fish from illegal fishing; the creation of a list of vessels that are involved in illegal and unreported fishing; the development of a Community Alert System when there is a suspicion that fish from illegal fishing have been detected; and a prohibition on importing fish from countries that have been identified as not cooperating with the EU scheme.

There are some controversial points in the regulation, such as its scope of application. Some Member States are calling for it to be limited to the fisheries responsibilities of Community vessels outside Community waters, since there are already plenty of provisions to control fishing within Community waters. In addition, the revision of the basic regulation on the control of fishing is expected by the end of 2008. I believe that there will be duplication between the two regulations and that they will not facilitate the process of simplifying the common fisheries policy.

In conclusion, let me say that this is indeed a serious subject and we should treat it as such. We must tackle it with discipline and determination, and always in cooperation with the fishermen, whose opinions and cooperation we crave.

In any event, we support Mrs Aubert’s report and thank her for her work.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Aubert report on illegal fishing was unanimously adopted in the Committee on Fisheries, as the rapporteur, whom I congratulate, has already mentioned. This alone probably sheds more light on the subject than anything I can say at this juncture.

However, one can never repeat enough that illegal fishing is a crime against nature and against the economy, one that unfortunately often goes unpunished and against which we have to act with determination and courage. I therefore would like to thank Commissioner Borg and the Commission for the timely way in which they reacted to the concerns voiced by Parliament in February 2007, putting forward a proposal for a regulation that exceeded all expectations and that rightly deserves our applause.

Nevertheless, however improved the regulatory framework may be, without the Member States’ commitment and sufficient human resources and materials being made available, success will not come easily in a battle where progress is hampered by extremely difficult conditions. This is why we need to get the Member States on board too.

In any event, with this report and the subsequent regulation, the European Union is taking a very important step and sets an example that ennobles us and fills us with pride. I am sure that the Commission will continue to welcome Parliament’s contributions with a view to improving its proposal still further.

Madam President, Commissioner, I apologise if I am now breaking with protocol, but I cannot pass up this opportunity to make a passionate plea. The fisheries sector is going through very difficult times due to fuel price increases. Everyone is suffering at the moment, but the most vulnerable especially so.

I know that several Member States, including my own country, Portugal, intend to ask you, or have already done so, for your support to find solutions within the European framework, namely by using the European Fisheries Fund flexibly to adopt measures that may attenuate the social effects of the current crisis. I know that it is not needed, but let me appeal for your solidarity and the spirit of openness that you have always shown towards the sector’s problems, to help find a satisfactory solution as quickly as possible.

  Elspeth Attwooll, on behalf of the ALDE Group . – Madam President, the ALDE Group wishes to express its full support for Mrs Aubert’s excellent report. The amendments it proposes clarify and, in some cases, develop various aspects of the Commission’s proposal, including some useful additions on force majeure subsidies and sanctions.

The emphasis placed on the need for non-discrimination in application of the regulation too is particularly welcome, for there is no doubt that IUU fishing is something that needs to be tackled on a global basis and the EU measures are an important step in that direction.

Last week I was fortunate to be on a delegation from the Committee on Fisheries to Norway. We were told that in the last three years, and particularly since the introduction of a port state control scheme for the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in May 2007, there has been a huge reduction in IUU fishing in the area. That scheme covers all EU Member States, as well as Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Russia. Indeed, Norway’s Minister for Fisheries and Coastal Affairs spoke highly of the EU’s cooperation in this regard.

But there is agreement too that localised measures can have the effect of displacing the problem rather than resolving it. That is why it is especially good to see Amendments 5, 6 and 54, which seek to do more to minimise any negative impacts on developing countries. I would add, too, that I believe we have a special responsibility to assist in the improvement of inspection and control systems in developing countries and to do so not only in the cases of those countries with which we have fisheries partnership agreements.

Further, I hope that the Commission, Parliament and the Council alike will be active in promoting the adoption of a binding convention on port state control at United Nations level. Preparation has already begun in the FAO and, with the right will, could be adopted in March 2009.

  Ian Hudghton, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group . – Madam President, I should like to thank my group colleague, Marie-Hélène Aubert for the amount of work she has put in successfully to this report.

It is obviously in the interests of all fishing nations and fishing communities to eliminate illegal fisheries. After all, it is the fishing communities themselves who will benefit from the successful conservation of the resource. International cooperation is essential in successfully eliminating illegal fishing by the pirates and organised criminals worldwide who operate in the field.

Within the common fisheries policy too much attention has been paid to the recent report of the Court of Auditors on control and enforcement. That report was based on data supposedly gathered from the six most important fishing Member States. However, that data that the Member States listed included the UK (England and Wales). Scotland has some 70% of the UK’s fisheries and was not included in that data. I would just like to make the point that there are distinct and separate quota and management and enforcement organisations within Scotland.

We have made some progress in my fishing nation too in recent years on improving controls. We have the registration of buyers and sellers and we have designated ports of landing. Good enforcement is, of course, important, but equally important is a sensible management regime which provides incentives to conserve by guaranteeing that Scotland’s fishermen, for example, are guaranteed to benefit in the long term from the conservation measures that they have to apply from time to time. The CFP has simply not provided that kind of guarantee.

I was glad to hear you, Commissioner Borg, say recently that you favour root-and-branch reform of the CFP. I agree. I say: let us return day-to-day management and control of the resource to the fishing nations themselves, who have fishing entitlements in logical fishing areas such as the North Sea, and let us abandon the unworkable notion that we can have equal access to waters and resources.

  Pedro Guerreiro, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Notwithstanding some aspects on which we have reservations, we welcome the initiative to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and we agree with the general thrust of the report.

Among other points, we stress the importance of the rules outlined in this initiative being applied to all vessels, whether from EU countries or from third countries. However, we would like to point out that making these proposals tally with a review of Community rules on control in the future must safeguard the competences of the Member States, namely in terms of procedures and carrying out inspections. Furthermore, we also believe that the whole gamut of questions regarding sanctions falls within the competence of each Member State.

Lastly, I should just like to emphasise that if the Commission could be as quick to respond to the sector’s just claims as it has been with this initiative, then the sector would not be faced with the constant worsening of its socio-economic situation.

  Hélène Goudin, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group . – (SV) Madam President, the Regulation being discussed today is both wide-ranging and complex, and I just want to emphasise a few points.

Firstly, the proposal that fishermen caught fishing illegally should repay the subsidies they have received from the EU is a very good one. We cannot allow a situation in which taxpayers are forced to subsidise criminal activity. On the other hand, illegal fishing is carried on by all types of boats. The proposal should therefore cover all vessels, both EU vessels and third-country vessels.

Secondly, the proposed catch certificate is positive. The certification process has a key role to play in combating illegal fishing. However, I have more misgivings about common maximum fines. The Member States should be allowed to act on their own responsibility by imposing deterrent charges.

Finally, I think that the common European fisheries policy has proved to be a failure and must be reformed. In order really to combat illegal fishing we need to cooperate internationally, both with regional fishing organisations and with other international bodies.

  Jim Allister (NI ). – Madam President, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is indeed something to be stamped out. There is much, therefore, in this report with which I agree, but I do have to reject its attack on subsidiarity by demanding that the EU should be setting the criminal sanctions and the establishment of an EU core of inspectors. Likewise, I oppose the unnecessary additional bureaucracy of applying the regulation to EU-flagged vessels, because these are already subject to the stiff provisions of the common fisheries policy.

We do not need more regulation on our own fishermen to deal with third countries which continue with their rogue activities. Having seen in recent months some punitive fines on local fishermen in the United Kingdom, I for one reject the suggestion that we need more and stiffer regulations and penalties on our own fleets.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE ). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to thank Mrs Aubert for her report. I think that it clearly expresses Parliament’s political will to support whatever actions are necessary to eradicate illegal fishing in all contexts, and, starting with the context that affects us, to close the Community to imports of and trade in illegal fisheries products.

We cannot, however, get around the responsibility that falls to the port State and the Commission itself under this proposal. We are talking about a regulation that is very ambitious in its wording, which will compel the Member States to be extremely vigilant and not to spare any material or human resources – one of the weak points of the whole control policy – to turn words into deeds. Unfortunately, this means once again that we need to bring other political wills into play in addition to our own.

The damage that illegal fishing causes, not only to biological resources, but also to legal fishermen, has been considerable every day for years. Currently a large proportion of the sector is in a state of revolt in response to another massive drop in profitability, one of the most serious causes of which is of course the rise in diesel prices. There are, however, other factors that are adding to the losses, and among these the mass entry of imports at low prices and of dubious origin across our borders is, under these circumstances, especially scandalous.

By way of example: in the last five months of this year alone, in Spain the price of diesel has risen by 38%, while the price of swordfish, which is an imported species par excellence , has dropped by 40%. There is no business in any sector that can survive this type of economic context, but nevertheless it is a proven fact that, when there has been the political will to monitor imports closely, as has occurred in the past – and I can bear witness to this – the prices paid to Community producers have immediately recovered.

Commissioner, I therefore ask you and the Member States to be firm in implementing this regulation with the utmost possible urgency.

  Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE ). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur and congratulate her on her first-rate work in this report.

As the European Union, we must finally realise that the more we allow this uncontrolled situation to develop, the more we are mortgaging the future of marine fishing and the global marine ecosystem. The EU should move forward immediately, acting not only as a union of regulations that are bureaucratic, complex and often not even implemented by its Member States, but should take a global initiative without being afraid of the major interests at stake or succumbing to international or other pressures. Thus the entire global community involved in fishing will be able to understand, accept and finally agree on the minimisation of illegal and unreported fishing. A prerequisite for such an initiative will, of course, be a globally accepted agreement on the maintenance of fisheries. I too should like to express my concern along with all my fellow MEPs on the major crisis being experienced by European fishermen. Commissioner, we must immediately examine these issues and deal with the problems.

  Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski (PPE-DE ). – (PL) Madam President, the Council regulation is an interesting example of preventive legislation, of a regulation directed against illegal catches, a practice that threatens the maintenance of a sustainable level of fish stocks. The clarity of the proposed solutions is the main reason why this particular document has a chance of being effective – a precise definition of the legislator’s intentions.

The rapporteur has excellently grasped the specific nature of the regulation, providing unusually helpful interpretations that simply make it easier to decipher the most important provisions. Governments of countries of the southern and eastern Baltic have responded extensively to this important legal initiative. In expert circles, though, arguments about the criteria the Council has suggested for punishing fishermen who take illegal catches are still continuing.

The question arises once more: does the idea of seeking a guarantee of effective punishment through its far-reaching formalisation take account of the differentiation in the catch potential of the European seas? Should subsequent legislation not bear in mind the possibility of making the penalty level dependent on the fish stocks and binding catch quotas for species caught? I believe that the recently declared modified ICS evaluation in respect of the Baltic ecosystem constitutes an announcement of a thaw in fisheries policy, in the process of adjustment of the revolutionary actions of the European Union aimed at protecting stocks.

The European Parliament Committee on Fisheries had the foresight to complete a special amendment document that treats the first year of application of the regulation as a transition period, a period of adaptation, enabling Member States to take the necessary steps to come into line.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE ). – Madam President, the world’s fisheries are in crisis. The EU’s fisheries are in crisis, compounded by a 30% increase in marine fuel prices in recent months. The fishermen are on our streets in Brussels and in our Member States. Your response, Commissioner, is urgently awaited. Moving now from unsustainable economic pressure to unsustainable environmental pressure, experts report that 75% of fisheries are significantly depleted and over-exploited. Illegal unreported unregulated fishing is a global problem that compounds the present fisheries crisis.

According to the FAO, overall IUU fishing accounts for up to 30% of total captures of some important fisheries, and catches of particular species could be up to three times the permitted amount. IUU fishing undermines sustainable fisheries, harms and destroys marine habitats and threatens the livelihood of responsible fishermen and communities depending on fishing. Illegal fishing also jeopardises food security, particularly for those heavily dependent on fish as a source of animal protein.

By-catch, due mainly to large-scale industrial bottom-trawling, often carried out unregulated, illegally and unreported by distant fishing fleets, has devastating effects on local fishermen and fish stocks. Over one third of the world’s catch is simply discarded due to inappropriate fish sizes or simply due to unintended catch. Misguided EU fishery regulations have encouraged completely unsustainable practices, such as discarding on a massive scale, as it is – perversely – illegal to land by-catches, the examination of which would be invaluable to the scientists.

The extreme vulnerability of most deep sea fish stocks to rapid depletion means that this fishery may no longer exist by the time regulations are implemented. I would like to ask the Commissioner whether he has looked at the possibilities for satellite tracking of vessels, electronic documentation systems for catches and on-board CCTV as possible measures to combat illegal fishing, as happens in other jurisdictions.

Proper implementation of this regulation will require a high degree of integration at Community level of the services responsible for inspection and control. It will also require fishermen and other stakeholders to take responsibility and ownership of the policy.

  Iles Braghetto (PPE-DE ). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has a duty and responsibility to play a significant role in combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and it is doing so with a package of enforcement initiatives, strengthening controls, inspections and sanctions.

The most ambitious objective, however, is preventive in nature: enabling and guaranteeing the traceability of products from catch to final destination. This is because, while the damage caused by such illegal activities in economic terms and in terms of protecting the marine environment is serious, the objectives to be achieved for consumer protection with a high-quality product and to safeguard fishermen’s occupations are no less important. These occupations are more than ever at risk because of many factors, some of which are economic, but some of which are structural.

It is these important social objectives that guide the European Union in preventing, discouraging and eliminating illegal fishing, which is the subject of this regulation, and which reinforce its commitment to ensure compliance with the provisions of the common fisheries policy in Community waters.

The unanimous vote in favour of the Aubert report in committee is an important signal of the will to put the proposed measures into practice.

  Petya Stavreva (PPE-DE ). – (BG) Mme President, Members of the European Parliament, This report touches upon very important issues related to the protection of seas and the measures to combat illegal fishing.

The need for change of the existing legal framework results from the increasing scope of this phenomenon which threatens ecosystems and fisheries in the Community. The rapporteur notes also the essential fact that Member States fail to follow the common fishing policy.

Existing sanctions vary from one Member State to another, which discriminates some fishermen in the European Union. Therefore it is very important to improve the cooperation, coordination, and exchange of good practices among the European countries so that to prevent and deter illegal and unreported fishing.

The establishment of a control system geared to the needs of the fishing sector is a substantial step forward. As well as damage to the environment, illegal fishing causes economic and social consequences that make legal fisheries suffer losses in the amount of billions of Euro.

The ban on the importation of fish products of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing into the European Union, too, can affect the profits from illegal fishing. The control policy and the serious sanctions for violations provide grounds for better management of fish resources.

Fishermen protest in Bulgaria, too, as they go through many difficulties. Therefore we need to make responsible decisions on the future of the sector. I support the report of Mme Aubert.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE ). – Madam President, I should like to thank Mrs Aubert for this report.

The one issue that needs to be stressed is the consumers’ lack of awareness of the problem of unregulated, unreported and illegal fishing and that is something we need to speak more about.

As others have said, the legal fishing sector is under severe threat and the impact of this illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is just part of the problem. Fuel costs are a major issue for them and we need some response from the Commission to the crisis which has seen fishermen give away fish in Member States and take to the streets in protest. Perhaps part of the problem we have with the illegal side of the fishing is over-regulation on the legal sector – but perhaps that is a debate for another issue.

Yes, we need a global agreement on this, but we need to start at home and whatever we do, rather than just layer on bureaucracy, which we are very often accused of in this place, we need to make sure that the regulations we put in place are effective and tackle the problem at source, so that we do not destroy both the economics and the environment.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE ). – (PT) Madam President, we do indeed have here an excellent report – congratulations to our rapporteur. The proposal, as has already been said by the Commission, is a good proposal, yet I should like to emphasise the message we were given by the draftsmen of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, namely that this is exactly the kind of instrument that can effectively respond to a crisis such as the one we are experiencing in the fisheries sector today.

It is precisely because sustainability rules are not respected in fisheries that fishermen are faced with this crisis, and this is the fundamental lesson that I hope we will all be able to draw from this. The problem is that the clock is ticking and time does not stand still for our legislative process, and from this point of view, Commissioner, measures must be taken with the utmost urgency, as has already been said here, because otherwise we shall miss the boat in terms of responding to our challenges.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE ). – Madam President, if five minutes of the catch-the-eye are not taken up, even people who have contributed to the debate can put a question to the Commissioner. I have done this several times since the catch-the-eye procedure came in. Therefore, with your permission, I should like to put a specific question to the Commissioner.

  President. − I have been told that I am only allowed to take two speakers. I am willing to give you the floor.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE ). – Madam President, I do not want preferential treatment but there are facilities for five minutes of catch-the-eye.

Could Commissioner Borg comment on the application of subsidies on marine fuels in some Member States and not others and, indeed, on an even-handed approach to subsidies? How can this be squared under the common fisheries policy – with an emphasis on common – and does it square with the competition policy rules? We have to help the fishing community who, at the moment, are in a severe economic crisis, particularly with the 30% increase in marine fuel prices. Could you be sure to respond specifically to this, as requested by several speakers, in your reply?

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission . − Madam President, first of all, the level of the debate on this important subject demonstrates that we share a strong commitment to address the issue of IUU in an effective and comprehensive manner. The truth of the matter is not only that IUU is an activity that threatens the sustainability of fish stocks, but it is also an activity that threatens the future of honest fishermen within and outside the European Union.

In order for us to be successful in our efforts, we must ensure three crucial principles. The first is that the scope of the proposal remains comprehensive. Secondly, the certification scheme put in place must be effective yet ensure that there are no unnecessary burdens imposed as a result. And the sanctions scheme we proposed must be such that these can serve as effective punitive measures and, therefore, be dissuasive by their very nature.

With regard to these three principles, I have heard confirmation that you have managed to sort out various issues with Member States concerning the scope, the certification scheme and the sanctions. You have done so without diluting or diminishing the effectiveness of the proposal. Specifically on the sanctions, let me say that one of the major problems with control is the fact that the range of sanctions applied by Member States is so diverse that it is the sector itself which has consistently and constantly called for a level playing field in this area. It is for this reason that, at the very least, we have proposed levels which should be applied in a proportionate and in an effective manner.

On the wider issue regarding the reform of the common fisheries policy, I can confirm that we have started reflecting on this and will be having an orientation debate in Council in the coming months. In fact the idea is to have an informal ministerial meeting in September. We are also dealing with over-regulation, with a view to simplifying the regulatory regime that is in place.

Let me also say that I cannot agree more with the comment made by Mrs Aubert that the fight against IUU, if effective, will help fishermen to better face up to the problems and the difficulties they are now facing, and this point was made by certain other Members who intervened. I also, however, agree that it is not sufficient.

On the issue of developing countries, we are committed to addressing this issue effectively, as I said in my opening remarks. Taking measures to assist developing countries is key if we are to solve the problem and not simply to displace it.

As regards control issues, let me assure the rapporteur that the Commission is coming up with a strong proposal during the third quarter of this year which will also be merged, or harmonised, with the IUU proposal that we have before us. In that way, both will be convergent and attain the same results.

As regards the fuel crisis, we already have the possibility of medium- to long-term measures that are in place, and this would be in combination with the restructuring of the sector. We will be looking at the market measures in place – this point was raised by some Members who intervened – which work in such a way that increased costs are borne by the fishermen and are not passed on to the consumer, as happens in other sectors. We therefore need to look into this in order to find out why.

There are systems in place which bring about a situation whereby it is the fisherman who ends up suffering, who ends up having to bear the increased costs himself, rather than those being passed on to the consumers.

We also offer fishermen some possibilities for providing immediate assistance, if this is linked to restructuring in the form of rescue and restructuring aid. However, I need to say here that I am also looking at this and am discussing it with my colleagues, with a view to trying to identify other ways and means whereby we can help fishermen face up to this new reality in the very short term. But I need to underline that we can only do this if there is a firm and a fixed-term commitment to restructuring, because the problem is also that of over-capacity. Therefore, unless we tackle the problem of over-capacity, we will have a recurring problem for as long as fuel prices remain as they are, or – worse still – if they continue rising, as the indications suggest.

This is what we have done with France, where agreement was reached between the Commission and France on a package of measures which are intended to help the French fisheries sector to restructure. I have to admit that this was not enough and did not satisfy the French fishermen.

I need to underline that, for the Commission to respond, we also need the cooperation and active engagement of Member States. We cannot act on our own. In this regard I understand that this crisis will be raised and discussed at the forthcoming June Council, and I personally welcome it.

On the question raised at the very end by Mrs Doyle concerning the application of subsidies by some Member States and not others, the information that the Commission has is that these subsidies that have been granted by different Member States either fall within the parameters of the de minimis (and any Member State can grant subsidies as long as they fall within the threshold of de minimis) or are under restructuring programmes to which I made reference before. There is the communication with regard to rescue and restructuring aid and, if agreement is reached – if the Commission gives the green light to a restructuring programme – then there are certain possibilities with regard to subsidies, with regard to state assistance, which would not otherwise be possible.

Where we have had information with regard to other subsidies which are not covered either by de minimis or under restructuring programmes, we are investigating them. There has just been, for example, a notification to France that the amount which was paid in the form of an insurance scheme has to be re-collected. So we do take action in order to see to it that the European rules with regard to competition are properly observed. However, I would end by saying that the immediate crisis is such that we need to address it very carefully in order to find ways and means whereby we try to find solutions of an immediate nature but which would also have the conditionality that there is a firm commitment within the short term for the fisheries sector to restructure in order to bring about capacity levels to match what can sustainably be fished out of the seas.

  Marie-Hélène Aubert, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, I would first of all like to thank the Commissioner and everyone who took part in this debate. Obviously we have also covered the background to the serious crisis currently affecting the sector. I should like to thank the Commissioner for trying to give precise answers to the questions raised on this subject, even though it is clearly difficult to go into detail in some areas. In any case, it is unfortunate that the European Union – or Brussels – should be systematically blamed for everything. I actually believe that this would be a good opportunity to show that the European Union – Brussels – is not part of the problem, but part of the solution. Admittedly, when we see the resentment that exists towards the European Union, we realise to what extent Member States and a number of industry members have shirked their responsibilities over the years, prioritising short-term interests, thinking that they can profit from these for a while, but refusing to see that, by doing so, they led an entire sector to the brink of disaster.

This is where we are now. How can we find instant solutions to a situation that has dragged on for years? It is not easy. You have made a few suggestions. However, we will not succeed if we do not take strict and drastic measures, if we do not employ all of the necessary means, because these texts will not be enforced without financial and human resources, adopting much more dissuasive sanctions than those that currently exist with regard to illegal fishing. This at least will not be too hard, considering the low number of fines recently imposed.

We also need to provide much more encouragement and reward for intelligent and sustainable behaviour and practices. Often, those fishermen and fishing enterprises who are adopting practices that are both extremely compliant and innovative in terms of sustainable fisheries management feel that they go unrecognised and unrewarded. I also believe that, both in terms of the fight against illegal fishing and other areas that have been covered, such as waste or resource management and quotas, we also need to come up with a much more rewarding strategy, one that is forward-looking and a step in the right direction, which does not currently seem to me to be the case.

To conclude, I believe that this report is a chance for us to raise all of these issues. Clearly, having this discussion alone will not solve the problems. I imagine that this discussion will continue in the next report, although it is about time that we had a broad consultation and ended the top-down negotiations between the Commission, governments and industry representatives and had a much wider, more horizontal, cross-disciplinary consultation. This would provide us with answers and the European Union and Parliament would again be allowed to fulfil their role and embrace their duty to find solutions for this sector in crisis.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 5 June 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE ), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has delivered a further blow to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which is a real international problem.

The adopted measures effectively complement the existing mechanism. I am specifically referring to the introduction of a scheme of port state control for vessels entering the port, where a catch certificate would be issued, and the ban on the entry of IUU vessels. I also welcome the ban on the importation of IUU fish and the publication of a list of vessels involved in IUU fishing.

The added value of these new European rules also stems from the development of a Community alert system when there is a suspicion that IUU fishing has been detected. The system of sanctions has also been strengthened, including the ban on access to public aid or subsidies by IUU vessels and the repayment of public aid or subsidies received, where necessary.

More importantly, I successfully lobbied the European Parliament to focus on outermost regions in the fight against illegal fishing, due to the exceptional fragility of their ecosystems. This sends out a strong signal to unscrupulous fleets, which will help clamp down on the unfair competition which is slowly but surely putting our fishermen out of business.

  President. − The next item is the report by Duarte Freitas, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears (COM(2007)0605 – C6-0453/2007 – 2007/0224(CNS) ) (A6-0183/2008 ).