Mr President, the Group of the shares the pride which Mr van Orden expressed a moment ago in the role of the European Union. A number of years ago, I visited a school class in Kabul, Afghanistan, and witnessed how children were told about the different types of landmines. And when I saw one of those landmines in the shape of a butterfly, I realised that landmines are designed so that children will play with them and get hurt, and it also gave me an insight into the moral value of those who manufacture this kind of product. I also saw then that the awareness campaigns in schools as well as amongst the population are the most effective tool to prevent victims. A substantial proportion of money should be earmarked for this. On behalf of my group, I welcome the relevant amendments with open arms. Secondly, it is obvious that we are often fighting a running battle, for while these mines were being cleared in Afghanistan by all kinds of associations, others were being re-laid elsewhere. And I am also casting my mind back to northern Mozambique, where I worked alongside organisations of handicapped people, injured by landmines, who got involved in the clearance and removal activities. This taught me two things. First, you have to involve the local population. People, even if they are injured, can manage a variety of things themselves. Second, I understood that the main aim of landmines is not to kill but to maim, and this makes this moral issue so loaded. When I arrived in Angola, I saw the Norwegian People’s Aid, and they used a method by which, together with the local population, they traced where the mines were and cleared certain areas very strategically. I took two things away from that experience: you need the experts, in this case the old soldiers of the Norwegian People's Aid and the local population – a crucial component – and you then need to clear the mines strategically. The toothbrush methods, which are extremely expensive and time-consuming, are not always appropriate. It is better to clear strategic regions, so that new life can be breathed into the local economy, etc. This got me onto the idea of not working with the national Angolan authority or via complex structures in the first instance, but of simply working with the authorities through strong NGOs among the local population in a well-organised manner, as is being attempted in Angola. At the same time, one realises that new landmines are being laid in Angola, and this brings me to the point which Mr Patten highlighted. Commissioner, you said that you were against a number of amendments. I believe, however, that if you were to study them again with more care, you would find that there are a few amendments you quoted which, in my view, concern the awareness campaigns, transparency, access for NGOs, as well as things which are going well at the moment but which could run more efficiently. I believe that you need not be afraid of the amendments tabled by Parliament in this respect. We do not want more bureaucracy or comitology; instead we want to create more room for you, we want things to be done efficiently, and I believe that our priorities in this respect are not a million miles apart. You may want to re-read a few paragraphs to see if all these points are really ripe for the bin, which is not so easy to admit for an English person. I believe that, as far as that is concerned, you and Parliament are on the same side. The Socialist Group feels part of this massive international anti-landmine campaign and we, together with other MEPs here, are proud of this.

Political group: PSE