Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our objective is, and must be, to extend the economic union into a security union. This is a task emanating from the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Tampere Summit. However, it is also necessary if we are to strengthen the attractiveness of the European Union as a location for business; moreover it is something which the public wants and we must respect their wishes because the people who live in the European Union have a right to security. Today we are discussing how we can take one step further towards this security union. We are discussing this in connection with measures to combat money laundering. If money is the driving force behind organised crime, then the measures which we are discussing today to combat money laundering throughout the world are part of our battle against this organised crime. If we can stamp out money laundering, then, in so doing, we will, in the end, also stamp out organised crime. Organised crime – as has been stated here several times, and as we know – generates huge profits from drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, nuclear proliferation, car smuggling and from many other sectors including, even, the art trade. All of this illegally acquired money is, however, laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. That is also the aim of organised crime and in this way organised crime and laundered money damage the legal economy of the European Union. The economy is being infiltrated on a huge scale. That is why these measures to combat money laundering are so very important. We can only tackle the situation as a whole, however, if we have a combination of several instruments to combat money laundering. Today we have an opportunity to discuss four such reports and measures in parallel. The first is to extend Europol’s remit. We know that Europol has competences in various fields, but now money laundering is to be added as an independent area of competence. This is a good thing. However, we must not forget to provide Europol with sufficient staff and funding so that it is actually able to assume the responsibilities which we are assigning it. I should also like to take this opportunity to call – as colleagues have done before me – for a serious anomaly finally to be removed and Europol to be subject to the same supervision as other institutions of the European Union. The second measure, the second instrument, is harmonisation. It only makes sense for Europol to have the relevant powers if we also succeed in harmonising the substantive and formal provisions of criminal law, in terms of what constitutes a criminal offence, the severity of the penalty and the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The third point is a fundamental one, namely that it is also important to improve mutual assistance in legal matters. Mrs Palacio made clear reference to this point, saying how necessary it was to also involve the relevant occupational groups and to make it clear to the Member States that here European interests need to come before national interests. My last point – and I think that this is also relevant – is the establishment of Eurojust or the provisional unit, because this is about improving coordination on investigations and prosecutions. The European Union and we, the European Parliament, are seizing a new opportunity in the fight against organised crime, which preoccupies us to such an extent. The Union is thus laying a building block in the transition from an economic union to a security union.

Political group: PPE-DE