Mr President, my report is a draft response by this Parliament to two legislative acts: a proposed Council framework directive on combating terrorism and a proposed Council framework directive on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States. Together with the creation of the European judicial authority, Eurojust, these two measures form the legislative basis of the European Union's response to the menace of terrorism. The European Union may allow itself a few moments of satisfaction. These measures represent a major step forward towards the creation of a European judicial space. I would like to thank the President-in-Office for reminding us that this judicial space did not start on 11 September last year, although it would be churlish not to recognise that the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September gave a political momentum which allowed us to knock heads together and overcome certain objections. Many of us regret that such a stimulus was needed. Nonetheless we welcome the progress it has brought. What do these measures do? The European arrest warrant applies to a wider range of offences than previous extradition agreements. It makes surrender a judicial, rather than a political process. It largely abolishes the dual incrimination principle. It sets a time limit of 90 days for extradition, giving us the chance to judge all suspects of an offence at the same time. It consolidates the idea of European Union law. The framework decision on terrorism makes terrorism an offence in every country. Currently it has been an offence in only six. It defines for the first time in international law a terrorist act and the offences which constitute a terrorist act. It seeks to approximate laws with common minimum penalties. I commend these measures to the House. The terrorist threat is deadly serious. It requires a serious response. These two measures constitute such a serious response. I regret – and we have in previous debates here regretted – the absence of proper democratic oversight and control of the Union's procedures of law-making in this area. This House argued for the invocation of Article 42 of the Treaty, allowing these measures to be brought within the first pillar. Nonetheless, we recognise that the process of debate has brought improvements, that our amendments at the first reading have introduced certain safeguards into these measures. I welcome the words from the President-in-Office of the Council about closer involvement of Parliament in the process of passing such legislation. Other measures, such as the freezing of assets, have been far less coordinated. Indeed, it is not unfair to say, from reports of Coreper meetings, that the European Union has been all at sea in its approach to freezing of assets and other decisions. The motion for a resolution on the table today reflects that. We know since the end of the 1990s that three phenomena – terrorism, internationally organised crime and corruption – are increasingly linked. What academics have called the terrorist criminal nexus is well established. The fight against the terrorist criminal infrastructure must be our top priority. We know, too, that internationally organised crime is by far the biggest factor, economically and probably politically, in this terrorist criminal nexus. Money laundering represents between 2 and 5% of aggregate global GNP. That is between EUR 500 billion and EUR 1.5 trillion. It is not enough just to freeze assets of terrorist groups. We must fight the economic dimension of terrorism if we are to get on top of the problem. The United Nations has started to do this through its financial action task force. The recommendations from the Washington meeting of 30 October to be implemented by June of this year are essential and provide an area where we can work together with the United States of America in combating this threat. But here I would appeal for the European Union to take the initiative: to take the initiative on ways forward, to try to bring the Americans back into the international community in this fight against terrorism, and to do so within a proper legal framework, with proper democratic and parliamentary control. A number of amendments have been submitted to my report. Amendments Nos 1 and 5 are identical and they cause me no problem. Amendment No 2 which comes subsequent to our adoption of the report in committee seems to be slightly out of context and I recommend a vote against. Amendment No 4 calls for the establishment of a European habeas corpus act. My group will support this, as we did in committee, although we consider the reintroduction of the amendment to be rather like adding too much monosodium glutamate to the cooking. But Amendment No 3 is the crux of the debate: the movers say that the European Union should not proceed without the guarantee of adequate standards in procedural law. That means that the Union cannot respond to the terrorist threat. I disagree with them. We must respond. But, in giving our agreement, we do so on the basis of faith that these measures will be rebalanced with procedural guarantees. This matter is very poignant to me personally. Faith is not a comfortable basis on which to proceed in politics. I am aware that my name, and perhaps the name of my party, may be associated with laws that could be used for repressive purposes. I appeal to the Council and Commission, in the spirit of the new relationship that we have between our institutions, to move rapidly to consolidate the necessary move forward in security with measures to promote freedom and justice on which the European Union will be judged. In commending these framework directives to the House, in recommending that we trust the other institutions, I say to them: you are on trial. The European Union is on trial before the court of world democratic opinion. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR