Mr President, I think that during our debate in the House on 14 May I stated what we perceived as the positive and negative features of the agreement now before us. I believe the recommendation I am presenting today on behalf of the committee I chair gives a faithful account of our views. Firstly, it is important that these agreements serve as instruments for broadening the scope of the protection of fundamental rights. This should be in line with the concept developed by Europe on the basis of our constitutions and the jurisprudence of the courts at Luxembourg and Strasbourg. The European Union cannot base negotiations on standards lower than those it demands of itself. This seems obvious to us and we cannot agree to extradition or to cooperation in criminal matters if the death penalty or an unfair trial might ensue. Military tribunals are an example of the latter. Secondly, these agreements can provide an opportunity for both parties to improve their respective procedures and even their legislation. The issue of data protection to be implemented on both sides of the Atlantic should be a case in point. Thirdly, no international agreement can make sense unless a reciprocity clause applies to both sides. We therefore call for the situation of those European citizens detained at the Guantánamo base to be resolved once and for all. My group does not wish signature of the agreements to be conditional on resolution. Nonetheless, we wish to state in the strongest possible terms that this situation must be resolved immediately. Fourthly, these agreements should also provide an opportunity to strengthen our internal legislation, making it more efficient. Existing arrangements between Member States should therefore take precedence. The European arrest warrant is a good example. These agreements should not compete with other relevant treaties such as that of the International Criminal Court. Fifthly, agreements as important as those signed with the United States must be monitored by the Council and the Commission. The agreements must also be monitored at parliamentary level by a joint committee comprising Members of both the European Parliament and the United States Congress. It is in both parties’ interest to set up such a committee as soon as possible. Finally, I should like to turn to the most sensitive issue, namely the procedure announced by the Council in the course of the most recent debate in plenary. We have failed to note a positive response to our request for formal consultation between the decisions on signature and ratification of the agreements. These are the first international European Union agreements based on both the second and the third pillar. Regular consultation of Parliament is therefore required for a number of reasons. One reason is because consultation must be the norm for the adoption of acts pertaining to the third pillar, including acts that fall into the category of international agreements. Another is that parliamentary monitoring of this type of agreement is the rule in all Member States. Such monitoring must therefore be deemed a common principle, and the European Union is bound to take account of it pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty of European Union. For all these reasons we believe that consultation with Parliament is the only procedure that would comply fully with the principles of democracy and the rule of law referred to in Article 1(6) of the Treaty on European Union. Let me put a question to you, Mr President. Now that we are drafting the a new Constitution for Europe, how could we justify to the citizens of Europe that agreements impinging directly on their human rights might come into force without being reviewed by the European Parliament? We feel that a Council decision to consult the Parliament concerning ratification of the treaties based on Articles 24 to 38 would be very much in line with the Treaty. It would also be entirely appropriate from the point of view of institutional policy, as has already been suggested by the Commission. Mr President, we trust the General Affairs Council will change its stance in the light of these arguments. It can only be in its interest and that of the Union as a whole for it to change its attitude and avoid creating a serious democratic deficit.

Political group: PPE-DE