Acts of terrorism in the United States
President
Ladies and gentlemen, I open this extraordinary meeting with the emotion and the sadness that this horrific event, the scale of which would have seemed inconceivable, inspires in us all.
The purpose of this meeting is first of all to demonstrate our solidarity with the American people, who have just been struck by a barbaric act of terrorism, to show our compassion for the victims, for the final toll will certainly be appalling, and to demonstrate our support for all those who are working tirelessly to save what further lives they can. Yesterday, I expressed this solidarity to President Bush, on my own behalf and on behalf of the entire European Parliament and gave him my assurance that the people of Europe are standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the tragic ordeal the American nation is suffering. When terrorism strikes in a Member State of the European Union we all feel concerned, and these appalling attacks inspire in me the same feeling of disgust and indignation. Today, we share the pain of the American people. It is the United States, that great democracy which did so much to help Europe protect its freedom that has just been attacked, but a blow has also been dealt to the sacrosanct values of life and democracy.
The date of 11 September 2001 will remain forever engraved on the memory of humanity. This tragedy calls for a calm reaction on our part but also for the closest cooperation between all countries that reject terrorism so that the perpetrators of these abominable crimes and those who have supported them can be identified, pursued, arrested and tried and so that blind terrorism can, at last, be eradicated from the surface of the globe. It also requires the international community to commit itself to finding a peaceful solution to the conflicts that nourish and sustain fanaticism. Over and above statements, over and above the common response to terrorism that we hope and pray for, all players on the international stage must now shoulder their responsibilities. From now on resolute action must be the order of the day and I know that the European Union will have to take decisions of vital importance.
I welcome the presence here today of Prime Minister Verhofstadt, Mr Michel, Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr Prodi, President of the Commission.
The European Union will have no credibility if it does not establish a common policy on combating terrorism. The European Commission and the European Parliament have stated this clearly, particularly during our last part-session. I hope that the Council will study these proposals without delay. Since the Tampere European Council, some tentative progress has, admittedly, been made with regard to the European area of freedom, security and justice, but this falls considerably short of what is needed. We must go further. Although the European Union has made its presence felt on the international stage, in the Middle East, at Durban and even in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, yesterday' s events are proof, if proof were needed, of the imperative need to establish a Europe of defence and a genuinely common foreign and security policy as quickly as possible. An extraordinary European Council meeting could provide a timely boost to all these elements for, as we know, history waits for no man.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us now observe a minute' s silence for all the victims.
(The House rose and observed a minute' s silence)

Verhofstadt
- (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, just over 24 hours ago the United States was hit by an attack of unprecedented scale and ferocity. At this very moment men, women and children of all ages, of all convictions and of all origins are struggling for their lives, while others are mourning the loss of loved ones and others still are suffering the anguish of waiting for reassuring news about the fate of those who are missing.
Madam President, our thoughts are with our American friends who have been assailed by this despicable and barbaric violence. We would like to be able to express just how much we share their suffering. Today, we feel that we are all Americans. I say that, and let there be no mistake about this, because it is not just the United States and its population that has been targeted, but democracy itself. Democracy and its values of liberty, tolerance and humanity, which are the exact opposite of blind and suicidal terrorism. As human beings, as believers in democracy, and as Europeans, we cannot nor will we ever be able to accept this barbarity.
Madam President, the Union that we want to build has its origins precisely in the rejection of the hate, fanaticism and murderous madness that nearly led to the downfall of our continent. And in the face of these tragedies a comprehensive range of concrete and firm gestures is called for. The various Member States have taken essential initiatives to come to the aid of the United States of America.
Madam President, on behalf of the Union, and following consultation with the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, and the leaders of all the Member States, I have conveyed our deepest sympathy to President Bush. As a token of solidarity and sympathy, the Union has decided that on Friday, 14 September a day of mourning and solidarity with the American people will be observed.
The Heads of State and Government of the fifteen EU Member States will be issuing a joint political declaration in the morning. At 12 noon, a three minutes' silence will be observed, during which all activity will be suspended.
(Loud applause) The candidate countries for accession to the European Union are also invited to join us in this act of solidarity. With this expression of solidarity, in addition to the political decisions which we will be taking in the coming weeks, the people of the European Union wish to express their deep sympathy with the grief, and particularly the pain, which is affecting the American people today.
(Loud applause)

Prodi
Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, an extraordinary meeting of the Commission took place this morning. We observed a minute' s silence and then discussed the various political aspects of this appalling tragedy which fall within the direct remit of the Commission.
This afternoon, I stressed before the European Parliament and the General Affairs Council that Europe must demonstrate full solidarity with the American people and adopt a common European position on all aspects of these tragic events.
The Commission is appalled by these criminal, barbaric deeds and has already sent its condolences to the victims and their families and expressed its sympathy for the American people. Our cooperation with the United States in the fight against terrorism is more essential than ever and must be pursued. Over the next few days, the Commission will examine the other proposals made in order to be able to take increasingly effective action to fight terrorism.
We are fortunate in that the economic and social structure of our countries is strong and resilient. Therefore, even in these sad circumstances, we can remain calm and confident, and we will not allow terrorism to divide us or to divide the world in its goals or in its endeavours to achieve them.
We must reflect at this time on the role of Europe. This criminal action is an attack on all our common values and on freedom itself. After this event, nothing will ever be the same. We therefore need to show great solidarity and friendship towards the American people and their government, and the European institutions and governments will work closely with our US and other friends at this tragic time and in the future.
However, there is also a purely European dimension. The tragic events we have witnessed highlight once again the need for a united, strong, resolute, unified Europe which protects freedom and safeguards peace in Europe and throughout the world, a Europe that acts united alongside countries which share our goals, that acts united to protect and promote the values of freedom and solidarity, the values which are the basis of the democracy preserved by Parliament.
I invite you, therefore, to reflect upon yesterday' s tragedy. Our citizens will only be able ensure peace and stability for themselves and for their children if they are united in their actions and if they feel that they can count on Europe. This is the path we must take to safeguard our people: we must follow it courageously, resolutely and responsibly.
(Loud applause)

Louis Michel
- (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, first of all, on behalf of the Council, to express our immense horror, outrage and revulsion at the tragic events which hit the United States yesterday morning. I wish here, on behalf of the European Union, on behalf not only of its leaders but also of all the citizens of Europe, to reiterate our most sincere sympathy for the victims and their families and for the American people and the government of the United States. This abominable act, which has caused such pain to the American people, is of course also an attack on the universal values which Europe has always shared with America. I would like, on behalf of the Council, to solemnly reaffirm here the unfailing solidarity of the peoples of Europe with the American people in defending these values. We want the United States to be aware that Europe is by its side in combating the evil of terrorism, no matter what form it may take. We cannot allow anonymous terror to undermine the values of the free and democratic world. We will stand together in attacking the major threat represented by large-scale terrorism. The battle against this scourge will be all the more effective to the extent that it is supported by preventive actions and a detailed political dialogue with the countries of those regions of the world where terrorism has its roots. Yesterday' s terrorist attack on the territory of the United States is an unprecedented act of provocation and of particularly loathsome cruelty. Acts of such barbarity, terror and cowardice cannot be tolerated. The scale of this tragedy demands an appropriate response. In conjunction with its allies, the European Union will examine all possible means of preventing such acts and of responding to them in an appropriate manner. The European Union will step up its activity in the international bodies responsible for the fight against terrorism with a view to ensuring that the perpetrators, accomplices and sponsors of acts of terrorism are rendered powerless. However, our determination should, under no circumstances, fail to go hand in hand with responsible prudence. At this moment we do not know the identity of the perpetrators, sponsors and possible accomplices of these terrible attacks. These are essential factors in being able to judge and react in a rational manner with a responsible and meaningful attitude. We must avoid any type of impromptu action.
While awaiting a response to these questions, our governments have taken the necessary steps to protect their people. The Council has been informed of security measures adopted as a matter of urgency by the Member States. In order to maximise cooperation between us, the Council has asked the Justice, Home Affairs and Transport Councils to take whatever measures are necessary to maintain the highest level of security as quickly as possible, particularly in the area of air transport, together with all measures required to prevent other attacks. The Justice and Home Affairs Council on 27 September and the informal Transport Council on 14 September will evaluate those measures already taken and any that may be necessary to complement them. The Extraordinary Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers has condemned these acts of barbarity, which are an insult to our common values, in the strongest terms. We have declared 14 September 2001 a day of mourning in the 15 Member States. We have asked the presidency to maintain close contact with the United States so as to study with them how best to provide whatever help may be required. At the request of several Member States, the Secretary General of NATO has informed the Council of the discussions in progress within that organisation.
I can now read to you the declaration by the European Union:
"The Council of the European Union, meeting in special session today, in the presence of the Secretary General of the Atlantic Alliance, expressed its horror at yesterday' s terrorist attacks in the United States. The Council stressed its complete solidarity with the government of the United States and the American people at this terrible time and extended its deepest sympathy to all the victims and their families. We ask all Europeans to observe three minutes of silence on Friday, 14 September at 12 noon and we also declare 14 September 2001 a day of mourning. These horrendous acts are an attack not only on the United States but against humanity itself and the values and freedoms we all share. The life and work of our open and democratic societies will continue undeterred. The Union utterly condemns the perpetrators and sponsors of these acts of barbarism. The Union and its Member States will spare no efforts in helping identify, bring to justice and punish those responsible: there will be no safe haven for terrorists and their sponsors. The Union will work closely with the United States and all partners to combat international terrorism. All international organisations, particularly the United Nations, must be engaged and all relevant international instruments, including those concerned with the financing of terrorism, must be fully implemented. The Community and its Member States have offered the United States all possible assistance with search and rescue operations. Discussions are underway to establish what help would be most useful. Recalling the strong and enduring ties which exist between the European Union and the United States, the Council has asked the presidency to stay in close contact with the government of the United States in order to convey this message of solidarity."
Following on from that, Madam President, these are the conclusions of the Council, so that you will be in receipt of all the relevant information:
"The Council expressed the profound solidarity of the European Union with the American people and approved a declaration condemning the terrorist attacks in the United States. The Council was informed of the security measures taken by the Member States. To ensure maximum cooperation between the latter, the Council asks its Justice and Home Affairs and Transport compositions to take all the necessary measures as soon as possible to maintain the highest level of security, particularly in the field of air transport, and any other measures needed to combat terrorism and prevent terrorist attacks. The Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 27 and 28 September, or earlier if necessary, together with the informal Transport Council meeting on 14 and 15 September, will evaluate the measures which will already have been taken and those which should supplement them. The Council reaffirms its determination to combat all forms of terrorism with all the resources at its disposal. The Council also took note of the declaration by the Commission and the President of the ECOFIN Council.
The Council has requested the presidency, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Commission submit, as soon as possible, a report on concrete measures that may be recommended to speed up the implementation and the strengthening of the operational instruments of both the Common Foreign and Security Policy and in the field of Justice and Home Affairs.
These measures will be aimed at increasing the capacity of the European Union to fight effectively, together with the United States and all our partners, international terrorism.
As for the Council, it intends to return to these measures regularly in order to ensure, in particular, that all the actions taken by the European Union are coordinated."
(Loud applause)

Poettering
- (DE) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my group' s sincere thanks to you, Madam President, for having convened this sitting, which gives us all an opportunity to express our deepest sympathy for and solidarity with those families that have suffered losses, with the President of the United States of America, with our colleagues in the US Congress and with everyone in the United States of America.
Yesterday' s horrendous attack in Washington and New York was not just an attack on the United States, but an attack on the entire civilised world, an attack against every one of us, including those in this Chamber. It was an attack on our ideals of democracy, human rights and peace. We are filled with grief and horror in the face of this disaster, a disaster which must never be repeated, and the forces of civilisation throughout the world must now work shoulder to shoulder with the United States to bring those responsible for this attack to account, and we must work closely together to prevent future terrorist attacks. We must find a way to stop attacks of this kind being planned again, and this will also require a whole new dimension in European and international cooperation.
We must commit ourselves today to launching a fight against terrorism, so that the apocalyptic events in New York and Washington do not mean a global apocalypse tomorrow, and as a Parliament we can be proud of the fact that last week we adopted Mr Watson's anti-terrorism report by such a huge majority.
For a few hours yesterday I had the impression that the United States' ability to act had been compromised. The United States is a world power to which we owe a debt of gratitude for fighting against Nazism in the Second World War and thus guaranteeing a peaceful future for Europe and it is a world power which has firmly resisted totalitarian communism, which ultimately led to the collapse of the wall dividing Berlin, Germany and Europe. On behalf of my group I would like to say that it is in our interest for America to retain its ability to act and to be strong, and for America to remain a good partner and friend to the European Union, and we should work together towards this goal in future.
(Loud applause)
We do not know who the perpetrators are. There are certain assumptions, but I would counsel against surmising that these assumptions are true. Above all, should these assumptions be confirmed, I would counsel us all against applying them to the Arab and Islamic world as a whole. I have never forgotten an outstanding speech given by Anwar al Sadat, the assassinated President of Egypt, on 10 February 1981. He said that Islam should never be judged by the misguided and irresponsible actions of people professing to be adherents of this great faith. Islam is a religion based on tolerance, not fanaticism, a religion based on love, not hate, and it is a coherent religion based on order, not chaos.
We should beware of making generalisations, and we should make it clear that we not only wish to live in partnership with our American friends, but that we also want to live in partnership and, if possible, friendship with those Arab and Islamic countries that are committed to peace.
(Loud applause)
We should commit ourselves today to building an order in Europe and throughout the world in conjunction with all our neighbours - an order in which Europe is strong and united. That is why, Mr President-in-Office, it gives such an impressive signal that both you and the President of the Commission are here today, a signal that we Europeans are united and strong, and that we wish to coexist in friendship and partnership with all our neighbours, on the basis of human rights, democracy, freedom, social well-being and, above all, peace. That must be the message we send out today, the day after the dreadful events of 11 September 2001.
(Loud applause)

Barón Crespo
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, our group shares the indignation and horror at the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
We wish to express our solidarity with the families of the American victims of these horrendous attacks. We would also like to express our profound sadness to the families of the European victims and all those who have lost relatives, whatever their colour or continent of origin, because this diabolical attack was not only directed against the American people, but also against the Europeans and the other people who live together in the cosmopolitan world of New York, and we must remember that the World Trade Centre is just a few steps from the headquarters of the United Nations.
This is an attack on our common values, on democracy, on the very foundations of our civilisation. As the late lamented Francisco Tomás y Valiente, President of the Spanish Constitutional Court, who was murdered by terrorists, wrote in an almost posthumous article: "Every time a person is killed, something dies within us" .
Exactly a week ago, this Parliament unanimously approved the resolution against terrorism. Then it was a European problem for certain States. Today we can see that the situation has changed qualitatively: terrorism has also been globalised as a result of a lethal combination of fanaticism, cowardice and high technology.
Our film archives are full of horror and disaster movies, with monsters attacking New York and other cities. What happened yesterday reminds us that we do not need monsters: we humans are monsters when we lose our minds. And as in Goya' s painting, 'the illusion of reason produces monsters' .
We Europeans must play a very significant role in the fight against globalised terrorism, in the fight for common values, for a more peaceful and just world. We want to fight shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, with our colleagues in the United States Congress, and also with the rest of our allies, in a joint action to resolve the most ferocious conflicts on the planet with perseverance and decisiveness.
We welcome the fact that the Americans, led by their President, despite this cowardly aggression, have so far acted with cool heads, containing their rage, as yesterday Kofi Annan rightly asked them to do. We would ask the leaders not to change that attitude, not to respond to terror with terror, that we may act jointly, above all in order to achieve something very important, because now is the time to strengthen our alliance with the United States and with all the people of the world who share our ideal of peace, justice and freedom.
(Loud applause)

Cox
Madam President, President-in-Office, President of the Commission, colleagues, this is an important place in which to celebrate this important moment. We in this Parliament are the tribune of the peoples of the European Union and we have gathered here today to declare solemnly our outrage, our sympathy, our solidarity and our common bond in humanity and democracy with the people of the United States of America, and with the people of New York City and Washington D.C.
We witnessed yesterday a profoundly shocking event. It is a new and low threshold in the tide of human affairs. We witnessed an act of war - without a declaration of war - by persons, movements or states, as yet, not fully determined, but who acted with a grim and focused determination. We must make sure that our response is common and not isolated, shared and not unilateral, aimed at our common enemy, which is terrorism, but not at wider forces such as Islam or the wider Arab world, should that be the source whence this monster may have sprung.
This modern apocalypse is America' s injury, but the wounds are universally shared among the community of democratic nations. To the people of the United States of America, to its President, its Congressional and civic leaders, and its communities throughout the country, especially the peoples of New York and Washington, to the grieving families of the missing and the dead and to those who have survived the ordeal, we express our sympathy in this hour of hardship and devastation.
New York is a very special place. It is a multi-cultural microcosm of the whole world. It is a special gateway between our old continent and the New World. It was through Ellis Island that in earlier generations, before the spirit of democracy took the deep root it has right across our continent, that our huddled masses, our oppressed and our starving went to find freedom, democracy and opportunity.
It is no accident that when the French Republic gave the people of the United States a gift to celebrate 100 years of that great republic, that they called that statue 'Liberty': no accident either that her extended arms should carry a torch of freedom. When someone touches that symbol, they touch us all deeply, because it is part of our common, human, democratic bond and inheritance.
I remember, as a schoolboy, seeing on television at home a visit by John Fitzgerald Kennedy to places I had never been in our divided continent. I remember his visit to the great symbol of that gross division, Berlin, with its wall. I remember as a boy I could understand, although I did not know about politics or international affairs, that when that man said, "I am a Berliner" , he said something deep and meaningful in terms of solidarity at that time.
Today, as the Prime Minister has remarked, we are all Americans, we are all New Yorkers, we are all Washingtonians. We share the sense of shock and horror. We share the bewildered outrage, we feel the vulnerability, for this is our common inheritance from yesterday's barbarous outrage. We share common democratic values and interests and we stand together willing to fight against terrorism and promote those interests and values.
It is important that we as Europeans say to the Congressional leadership today: 'You do not stand alone. You are not isolated. We can make common cause in this matter, and we must do so.' But, most of all, we stand today in our common bond of humanity as our American friends bravely search for their survivors and for their dead.
Language often fails us on these occasions. My own colleagues have asked me to invite you, Madam President, in addition to this solemn moment, to open a book of condolence that we might also convey through that, at some appropriate time to the Congress, our interlocutor in US democracy, that in spite of the space which divides us across the Atlantic, we are resolutely united by the bonds of democracy and freedom and in the fight against terrorism.
Our message to them today, in this fight for democracy and against terrorism, is that our only choice is to stand united; for united we stand but divided we shall fall.
(Loud applause)

Hautala
Madam President, President of the Commission and the Council, the world today seems much bleaker than it did before Tuesday' s shocking events. The horrific images of the brutal and cowardly acts of terrorism on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington will stay in our minds forever. No cause could ever justify such a terrifying act of cold-blooded barbarism.
On behalf of the Greens/European Free Alliance Group, I want to express the deep sorrow we feel for the victims who died in this tragedy and wish to send my heartfelt condolences to the families and all those who have lost their loved ones. Our thoughts are also with the rescue forces, the firefighters and policemen who risked and lost their lives to save others.
What the world witnessed yesterday - and there are no other words to express it - was a crime against humanity. As soon as the terrorists are identified, they should be brought to an international court for crimes against humanity and judged accordingly. This is the time to speed up the establishment of a permanent international criminal court.
In the aftermath of this tragedy, the United States of America should also recognise the need for such an institution. If, on the other hand, the United States responds with attacks on possible suspect countries, they will not only be killing more innocent people, just like those who died so tragically on Tuesday, but they will also be encouraging further counter-attacks: two wrongs never make a right.
The devastating consequences of a spiral of revenge are nowhere more visible today than in the Middle East. We should do everything possible to ensure that this attitude is not repeated on a global scale. I would like to express our deep concern about the situation in the Middle East and call for international efforts to bring the peace negotiations back on track to be intensified. In this regard, we welcome the clear commitment made along those lines by Belgian Foreign Minister, Mr Louis Michel, in today' s press and as representative of the Presidency-in-Office of the European Union.
We need to be tough on terrorism, but we also need to be tough on the causes of terrorism. We need a political response on a global scale to this unprecedented challenge in order to weed out the real roots of terrorism which stem from political, social and environmental conflicts: this concept underlies the report of Mr Watson, which this Parliament adopted last week.
If there is widespread fanaticism, which breeds and supports this sort of terrorism, we can assume that there is something wrong politically. The European Union is well placed to engage in forms of conflict prevention and conflict resolution which address the causes and not merely treat the symptoms. That is why we believe a European Union/United States Summit should be held to deal with all aspects of the new terrorist threats, including the social and political causes.
On Tuesday, our sense of security was shown to be illusory. It became evident that high-tech measures, such as a missile defence system, would be powerless in the face of this new kind of low-tech terrorism. What has happened in New York and Washington cannot be allowed to ever happen again. All defenders of democracy must protect our precious civilisation and uphold the civilised rule of law.

Wurtz
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, none of us, in fact, have the words to express the feelings aroused by the terrorist attack of unprecedented barbarity with which the United States has just been hit. The American people is going to have to live through a deeply traumatic experience which is likely to become still more intense as the scale of the disaster they have just experienced becomes more apparent. In this unimaginable ordeal, they must be able to count upon our unqualified solidarity.
I would add that, if these faceless monsters targeted the United States yesterday, they will be able, tomorrow, to bring terror and death to any region of the world, including, of course, the European continent. Madam President, my group therefore fully supports the declarations you have made and the steps you have taken on our behalf. These dismaying attacks constitute a challenge to the whole of the human community, a challenge we are now going to have to learn to take up. I say 'learn' because, if we all agree that the guilty parties must be found and punished, we are obliged to acknowledge that, where every other aspect of the matter is concerned, more questions than certainties arise out of the tragedy of 11 September 2001. In my view, nothing would be more inappropriate, indeed more dangerous, than to react to this radically new phenomenon with well-worn notions whose limitations have just been cruelly demonstrated. After an outrage of this kind, there may, in other words, be a great temptation to call fervently for violent retaliation which would, however, have immeasurable consequences.
What is more, you are right, Mr Poettering. It would do no service to the cause of peace to allow criminal fanatics to be confused with entire peoples, a number of whose representatives have, sometimes with much dignity and in a deep spirit of responsibility, indeed just expressed both their radical condemnation of the terrorists and their solidarity with the American people.
Finally, and in more general terms, no one must forget ever again that we are all part of the same world. Even the strongest nation of all is not invulnerable. The entire international community is sentenced to confronting together the great problems facing the planet - the oceans of frustration, the great divisions that are opening up and the negotiations that have broken down - and to cooperating as closely as possible in the search for long-term solutions. That is undoubtedly the decisive contribution that Europe can make to the world in order to join in taking up the challenge to civilisation facing us.
(Loud applause)

Pasqua
Madam President, Prime Minister, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the initial thoughts which we have to express at this time are feelings of compassion towards the victims and of solidarity with the American people. The terrorist attack of which they have been the victims is not only aimed at themselves. It is directed at the very heart of democracy itself. Democracies are fragile things, and we are well aware that they have difficulty confronting this type of action. In the light of history and of experience, however, I remain convinced of the American people' s ability to come through this ordeal and, at this time, I believe it is important for this House to express its solidarity with them.
That being the case, I should like to thank you, Madam President, for having organised this meeting which my group, in common with others, had requested. I am glad that it is taking place. I hope that it will be followed by a debate enabling us to examine the problems posed by international terrorism in greater depth. Having, on two occasions, had responsibility for leading the fight against terrorism in my own country, I should like to say that there is, to start with, one false notion that it is necessary to get away from: that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists. There are not; there are only terrorists, full stop.
(Loud applause)
In so far as it involves a minority trying to use force and violent action to impose its point of view on the greatest number of people, terrorism is never anything other than a manifestation of the fascism and totalitarianism which we have fought in the past and which we must continue to combat resolutely. However, the fight against terrorism presupposes a state of permanent mobilisation, and it is probably because we have rather lost sight of this idea and this obvious fact that we are now confronted with the tragic situation we see in the United States. I think that the United States has made the mistake of believing it is probably immune from this type of action. We in Europe have, unfortunately, already experienced such acts: in Germany, Italy, France, Spain and many other countries. We know that terrorism is a blind force that can strike anywhere and at any time. We also know that political will is needed in order to combat terrorism. This will must be affirmed. Cooperation is also required. If each State wishes to reserve for itself the information it has managed to obtain and if there is no real cooperation at all between the services concerned, then we will be heading for further disasters. If, on the other hand, there is a new awareness on the part of our countries and at the level of international cooperation, if there is the will to pool all the information that may be to hand and if, also, a decision is made to create, in one form or another, a permanent body for cooperation, with the ability to analyse this information and propose the necessary measures, then we shall have the opportunity to oppose terrorism with some success.
I should like, for my part too, to concur with what has been said in this House, firstly by our excellent fellow Member, Mr Poettering, and then by Mrs Hautala and Mr Wurtz. There would be nothing worse at the present time than to speak in such thoughtless terms as to create a sense of solidarity between terrorists and the Muslim world. That would be the worst of mistakes and the most stupid thing of all to do. That is why, of course, none of us can be satisfied with declarations that do not mean very much. I personally think, however, that I - indeed, our Community as a whole - would consider it to be of great value if Muslim religious leaders at the highest level were themselves to condemn these attacks and in that way demonstrate that terrorists proclaiming a perverted faith cannot possibly be identified with, or thought to share any common ground with, the Muslim religion, which deserves the respect of each one of us.
(Loud applause)

Dupuis
Madam President, I shall speak on behalf of the radical delegation.
I would first of all like to thank the Belgian presidency for their initiative on Friday. I believe that it is all the more necessary since, while the majority of us feel great emotion and great compassion for our American friends, there are those who are saving their emotion and their compassion for the possible American reprisals. I therefore warmly thank you. I believe that we have a reason which has not been mentioned here today, another reason to feel compassion for our American friends, and that is that if it is they who have been attacked today, and not us, it is probably due to the lack of courage of our policy, to its ambiguities and its hypocrisies, which have not been demonstrated by our American friends.
Mr Poettering, you rightly talk about the need to confront the causes of terrorism, and I believe that it is crucial for the European Union to examine its policy over the last fifty years, which has been fundamentally racist in relation to the Arab world and the Islamic world, a policy which has done nothing but sustain the worst regimes in those countries, the worst regimes of Saddam Hussein, of Mr Gaddafi, of Mr Hafez El-Assad in the past and his son today, a policy which has hardly shown solidarity with past and present democrats, such as Mrs Ben Sedrin in Tunisia, Mrs Al-Sadaawi in Egypt, Mr Ibrahimi in Egypt, and so many others who fight for democracy in their countries, and I believe that it is a matter of urgency for our Union to make the establishment of democracy in those countries its political priority, since that is the only way to pursue and destroy the terrorist bases in those countries. Terrorism does not come from the Moon. It is born and grows up in those countries which encourage it, which often finance it, and which are responsible for the fact that yesterday we saw the greatest tragedy since the end of the second world war, the greatest ever terrorist tragedy. I would like to assure the Commission and the Council that I believe our Parliament must completely alter its position. It has literally been taken hostage over recent months by certain crypto-Stalinists who have pushed it into excessively Palestinian unilateral positions which certainly have some connection with the current tragedy of our American friends. We must finally have the courage to break the taboos. We have an historic duty in relation to Israel, but we also have a duty in the present. Israel is the only true democracy in that part of the world. We must break the taboo. Israel must be part of the European Union. That is the only way to guarantee security and democracy in that country. But it is also the only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to guarantee secure borders for the Israelis, and therefore for the Palestinians. Furthermore, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it is intolerable that the democracies of the world continue to be made fools of, and Mr Louis Michel, our President-in-Office, has borne the brunt of this in Durban. I thank Mr Michel for his determination and for the resolute fight he put up in Durban, but it is intolerable that the Syrian regime should do what it did in Durban. Our democracies must create and organise themselves into a worldwide organisation of democracies, so that the empty shell known as the UN may recover its original purpose, which is to resolve the great problems of the world.

Bonde
Madam President, dear American friends, our sympathy is with the many families who are now missing their loved ones. Our tears are shed today for those who have lost a son or a daughter, a mother, a father, or both. Our prayers are with those who are still alive but remain in peril. Our thoughts are with President Bush and the people he leads. Our hope is that in the pain of these terrible atrocities, the reaction of the American people will be tempered with wisdom.
Even as we weep, we know that this is not a time for hatred and revenge. This a moment of truth, a time for reflection for all of us. We only have one world and we are all responsible for it and its people. World peace is something of which we all dream, but we have learned through bitter experience that it was not enough simply to tear down the wall between East and West. We have learned that it is not only the superpowers who can acquire the methods and means of mass destruction. Small, faceless groups intent on destruction have it within their power to destroy our whole world.
The answer is not only improved intelligence and sophisticated security. The way to world peace is to work for it by respecting human rights and the right to national self-determination for all. We must fight torture, terrorism and every crime against humanity. We must take sustainable development seriously. We must help the poor, the oppressed and the powerless before they become desperate, suicidal terrorists. Just as terror can never be justified, neither can oppression. Oppression breeds people who are prepared to take all life before them in the passionate intensity of their hatred.
We must bridge the gap between the West and the rest of the world, instead of fighting each other. In this way we may remove the raison d'etre of terrorism. It is still too early to foresee all the lessons to be learned from Tuesday' s shocking event but it is not too early to know that Tuesday, 11 September 2001 marked a turning point in history. Our world will never be the same again. Our thoughts are with the victims of these horrendous attacks and those who grieve for them. Let the memory of these terrible events always call to mind our duty to take better care of this world.
(Loud applause)

Berthu
Madam President, on this tragic day, we wish to express our solidarity and our friendship towards the American people, victims of the most horrendous terrorist crime. Nor do we forget that many nationals of European countries work in the towers of the World Trade Centre, and that many of them have certainly died. We have a profound feeling that it is not just the United States, but the whole of the Western world, of which we form an integral part, which has been targeted. It is not in fact just the United States, but the whole of Western civilisation that has just been the victim of an act of war, of a new war, which is murderous but elusive, because it does not correspond to any traditional criteria. Some people believed, after the fall of the Soviet Union, that the world was becoming less dangerous, and that was an easy excuse to relax the security effort. That was a grave error. In fact, we have entered a new era, in which there is a greater risk from rogue States led by people driven mad and blinded by hate and ideology. Worse still, more elusive than the rogue States are the stateless terrorist organisations whose murderous folly does not correspond to any logic. This new war is going to force us to review all our strategic ideas. Firstly, Europe is going to have to understand that security must take priority over abolishing controls at borders and elsewhere. I shall not dwell on this point, which you all understand. Secondly, we must strengthen our fight against terrorism and criminal organisations through European cooperation and worldwide cooperation on the exchange of information and on action, but also by first of all putting our own countries in order. It is terrifying to imagine what ideas may be implanted in other places by the attacks which have just been inflicted on the world' s most powerful country. Thirdly, we must re-establish the defence effort where it has been relaxed, as it has in my country over recent years. The threat is real and takes many forms. The rapid reaction force set up by the countries of Europe is a good idea, provided that its democratic control, its variable geometry and the freedom of engagement of the members are better respected than they are at the moment, as can already be said. But, above all, it is insufficient.
While seeking to eradicate terrorism, as you have said, Madam President, we must simultaneously make our territories safer in order to better protect our people. In order to make our territories safer, all useful means must be implemented. One of these is the idea that President Bush launched some time ago, which is an anti-missile shield for the United States. The Europeans, for their part, took a rather negative view of this idea. Today, we must review this issue. Would it not also be in the interest of Europe to conduct studies into the possibility of having its own shield, alone or in cooperation with the United States? That remains to be seen. It would not protect against attacks such as yesterday' s, of course, but it would protect against other risks which we are obliged to anticipate. Neither, of course, do we currently have the necessary technological means, but the quest to acquire them would be a challenge worthy of consideration. That would undoubtedly be a European-scale project, Madam President, which would no doubt be a powerful demonstration to the public of the usefulness of respectful cooperation between national sovereign states, which is intended to protect them.

President
Ladies and gentlemen, today we have wished to hold a formal sitting. We shall consider, together with the Group Chairmen, the possibility of organising a major fundamental debate at our part-session next week. I should also like to say that I naturally take a very positive view of the suggestion made to me to establish a book of condolence addressed to our colleagues in the American Congress. That book will be placed at the exit of the Chamber tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m.
I should like to offer my most heartfelt thanks to Prime Minister Verhofstadt, to Minister Louis Michel, to Mr Romano Prodi, and to all of you, and declare this formal sitting closed.
(The sitting was closed at 6.10 p.m.)


Explanations of vote
Oldřich Vlasák
(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to explain my vote on the European Parliament resolution on stepping up the Union's disaster response capacity. Certainly the document's tone of solidarity and mutual help is a step in the right direction. The Barnier report challenges us to take practical steps and in this regard the Commission communication shows the way forward. Indeed we must ensure compatibility and strengthen cross-border cooperation between our countries' protection forces at different levels. Unfortunately, I was unable to support the resolution because our oral amendment was not adopted. In this amendment we oppose creating legally binding instruments that would affect national legislation, policies and programmes and so affect the element of solidarity. I simply believe that we will achieve better protection against the impact of disasters by supporting the protection forces in our Member States, through coordination and investment in their equipment, not by drawing up new legislation that will do nothing more for the whole process than create more bureaucracy.
Zita Pleštinská
(SK) Since 1968 the Customs Union has played a crucial role in preserving and developing the single market. Forty years of the Customs Union has been a substantial achievement and it has provided benefits for EU business and citizens.
I welcome the resolution by Mrs Arlene McCarthy, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the 40th anniversary of the Customs Union and I voted in favour of it.
Due to globalisation and technological progress, the Customs Union is having to cope with challenges such as counterfeit goods, increased imports of dangerous products and the need to set up electronic customs systems. Only mutual cooperation between the customs administrations and surveillance authorities at international level will be able to protect the EU market against imports of dangerous and counterfeit products, thereby strengthening consumer protection. I became convinced of this when visiting the national customs authorities and customs administrations in Prague, Antwerp and Washington, as well as Beijing and Shanghai.
This anniversary is a suitable occasion to thank customs officials for their demanding and often dangerous work, and for expressing our appreciation of the successes they achieve in their fight against dangerous products, counterfeit products and piracy.
Daniel Hannan
Madam President, the 40th anniversary seems an opportune moment to address a misapprehension that has existed, I think, in our country ever since your constituents and mine voted to join what they thought was the Common Market some 35 years ago - the misapprehension concerning the difference between a free-trade area and a customs union.
What I think most British people understood by the Common Market was that there would be mutual product recognition, that if you could sell something in the UK, you should also be allowed to sell it in Germany, France and Spain and the other way round.
But of course what we have instead is standardisation. Something is required to contain certain ingredients, to be of a volume of not less than 'x' and not more than 'y', and even if that product was never intended for export, even if it never crosses frontiers, it can find itself criminalised and prohibited in its own country; and this is often because a rival somewhere in the EU - as often as not in Britain - which happens to meet all of a group of specifications anyway, uses the mechanisms of the European Union in order to pass on its costs to its rivals.
I think it is a shame that we have lost the original concept of free circulation of goods and services in favour of harmonisation, which reduces consumer choice.
Syed Kamall
Madam President, how wonderful it is to see you in the chair.
When I give speeches in my constituency of London - for those of you who may have heard of London, the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world - it is often pointed out to me by my constituents that they thought in 1973 that we were joining a customs union. Then I say, 'Do you not understand the nature of the beast? Do you not understand the nature of the European project? It is all about further political and economic integration'.
In fact in my first week in Parliament the leader of my group, Hans-Gert Pöttering, stood up and said, 'Nothing must be allowed to get in the way of European integration; nothing must be allowed to get in the way of the European project'. So clearly, there is a misapprehension of the nature of the project in my constituency.
My plea to you, those of you in this Chamber who support the project, is: please be honest about its intentions. If you seek to deny the truth about this project, then, once you ask the people, they will reject it, as they did in the referendum in Ireland.
Marian Harkin
Madam President, I too am delighted to see you in the chair.
I voted for Amendment 6 because I believe that the authorisation of the chlorinated chicken imports would undermine European standards and I see that happening on two fronts. First of all, there is a lack of scientific data on the environmental and health impact of using the substances that are proposed. Secondly, given the regime under which poultry producers operate, it is unreasonable to have two different standards, both from the perspective of the producers and more importantly from that of the consumers.
The previous speaker mentioned the Lisbon referendum in Ireland. Certainly one of the issues on the ground that I came across when canvassing was that people do object to different standards. But what we are doing here in Parliament today is dealing with that, so I am delighted that Parliament has passed that resolution.
Marian Harkin
Madam President, I fully support the resolution passed by Parliament. Again, one of the things we often speak about in Parliament is how we respond to the needs of citizens. I think this is a clear case where a response is needed.
The fishing industry is in crisis, with fuel prices having increased by more than 300% in the last five years while prices for fish are similar to those paid 20 years ago. So the bottom line is that fishermen cannot survive, they are going out of business and I think some of our proposals in this resolution will help to improve the situation.
I am pleased to see that the Slovenian presidency has said that they will take this on board, and I would call on the Council of Fisheries Ministers when it meets next week to pay particular attention to this resolution.
President
Now, Mr Kamall, I suppose you are going to tell us about fishermen in London?
Syed Kamall
Madam President, I do not think there are any left, thanks to the common fisheries policy!
Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to explain the way I voted on this important debate. But what I would say to my colleagues in the House is, actually, let us look at what the real problem is. Whenever there is an international crisis, you seek to blame that for the problems in the fishing industry. Actually it is not the rise in fuel prices that is the real problem in the fishing industry. It is the common fisheries policy, a system of central planning that the Soviets would have been proud of. I find it amazing that colleagues in this House are so willing to espouse Soviet economics.
Let us look at some of the more successful fish preservation systems around the world. If you look at the ones, for example, in Iceland and New Zealand, you will find that they are based on the rule of law and property rights and transferable property rights. If we really want to solve the problem in the fisheries industry, it is time to trust the rule of law; it is time to trust property rights; it is time to trust the free market.
Peter Skinner
Madam President, I do not want to speak on this item but the previous item. I was trying to attract your attention.
I abstained on the poultry carcass issue, primarily because I believe there is evidence to refute the claims that we need to keep the ban in place. I particularly think there is scientific evidence in place to allow this ban to be lifted. But, in any case, none of this discussion has come to the fore.
What we have instead is a very expensive process in Europe for cleaning chicken carcasses. That is the real problem because any carcasses that come into the European Union would seem to be cheaper; as a result they sell more quickly and obviously suit the consumers.
This is not about health claims, this is about protectionism. I think it is a very sad day for Europe that we have this particular debate in such a short and truncated way, rushed through as a resolution this week in Parliament.
I abstained as a result of this and I believe our relationship with the US and with other countries is stained as a result.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) The EU-Russia Summit is rightly receiving a great deal of attention. Taking into account Russia's important geopolitical standing and its enduring historical and cultural ties with Europe, I support the establishment of a strong political partnership between the EU and the Russian Federation.
This partnership should include mutual assistance in security issues, namely the fight against terrorism and organised crime, and overcoming the obstacles to free trade and travel. However, we must not overlook the presence of several problematic aspects in the relationship between the Union and Russia. In this regard, it is important for the EU to speak with one voice.
No Member State that takes the common foreign and security policy seriously should build its bilateral relations with Russia in such way that would damage the just interests of the Member States. In areas concerning sensitive international issues, the EU and Russia should reach a consensus based on respect for international law and territorial integrity, for example in the case of Serbia and Kosovo.
To conclude, I would like to say that the EU should help Russia to develop and strengthen democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Madam President, the EU-Russia summit is approaching. This is a significant event, which is why the debate in our Parliament concerning the preparations was so important.
Relations between the European Union and Russia are of enormous importance for stability, economic growth and security in Europe and the whole world. These relations took on a new dimension after the EU's enlargement with another 12 countries, principally from central and eastern Europe. These are countries that, in the past, were closely linked economically, politically and militarily with the former Soviet Union.
Thus far, bilateral trading relations with individual countries have been transferred to the level of the EU and Russia. However, Russia is constantly trying to make arrangements with individual countries, bypassing the EU. Exceptional circumstances are frequently cited for this bilateral cooperation.
Russia is an enormous country with great political and military aspirations, with vast energy resources that define its position in Europe and the world. Having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Russia is an important partner that should be included in measures to combat climate change as well as those relating to environmental protection.
Tunne Kelam
Madam President, in the case of paragraph 29, which ends, 'to offer a greater EU involvement in the conflict resolution process', I support the original version, which adds and continues, 'including the possibility of an EU peacekeeping mission on the ground and a replacement of the CIS and Russian troops'.
I find that it is absolutely important just now to send a clear message on behalf of the EU that we are ready to make a concrete commitment in the form of a peacekeeping mission in Abkhazia.
Jim Allister
Madam President, I voted for this report because, as in other sectors, I am concerned to see the EU decline in sheepmeat production against a rising tide of imports.
There are not just farm income issues here but pertinent environmental issues because, of all farmed animals, sheep probably contribute the most to the natural upkeep of less fertile areas and the maintenance of biodiversity.
Environmental degradation of many upland and less-favoured areas will result from diminishing sheep farming. Thus the necessity to sustain this industry and contemplate environmentally-linked payments to support it.
I also believe a proper country-of-origin labelling regime could greatly help promote growth in consumption of local lamb, particularly with rising imports.
Finally, the Commission's rush to electronic tagging will impose further costs on a sector already diminishing because of uneconomic returns. At most, such tagging should be voluntary for each Member State and region.
Marian Harkin
Madam President, I agree with the final speaker about the electronic tagging. It certainly should be voluntary.
I supported Amendment 4 because I want to ask the Commission and the Council to look at introducing some kind of Community financing for the system of electronic tagging. The goat, sheep and lamb sectors are in crisis and they certainly cannot afford to have further costs foisted upon them.
Indeed, I would have preferred Amendment 1 - but of course that fell on the adoption of Amendment 4 - where it was recommended that the implementation of the electronic identification system be deferred until 2012 at the earliest. I agree with the former speaker, as I said, that the bureaucracy and cost involved far outweigh any of the benefits.
James Nicholson
Madam President, as I said last night, this is a very good report. Unfortunately last night the Commissioner ruled out possibility of the Commission agreeing to the rapporteur's proposal to have a task force to look at the industry.
Now I am not a great believer in task forces because the place is littered with them; every time we have a problem we set up a task force and you never hear tell of it again.
But I think if we had had better cooperation before we came to this Chamber, we could have put forward a firm proposal that would have helped the industry and worked for the industry.
Now we have got nothing. We have got electronic tagging. We have not got what we asked, that it be put back to 2012. The industry cannot afford it. But I think we will return to this; we have not heard the last of it, because we have got to defend the sheep industry throughout the whole of the European Union.
Luís Queiró
in writing. - (PT) The transport of dangerous goods has been discussed many times, and safety standards have gradually been clarified and simplified as a result. With Mr Liberadzki's report, therefore, existing legislation on the transport of dangerous goods will form a sound basis for the scope of the directive in particular, which has been extended to inland waterways. I congratulate the negotiators on reaching an agreement that will make it possible to conclude this dossier at second reading.
The extension of the directive to inland waterways will involve a two-year transitional adaptation period for Member States, which will be able to regulate or prohibit the transport of dangerous goods in their territory for reasons other than safety during transport.
It should therefore be stressed that this legislation illustrates our efforts to make the transport of dangerous goods in the Union increasingly more effective and safe by eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy and added costs, or rules that do not make its management more efficient.
Luca Romagnoli
in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in truth there is very little to discuss in Mr Liberadzki's excellent report on the inland transport of dangerous goods. I voted for the report in committee and I confirm my vote here.
The more intramural trade like that between the Member States of the Union increases, the more useful it is, in my opinion, for such flows to be comparable, especially in terms of safety, but also in terms of inspections and related administrative procedures. It would not, moreover, be logical to criticise or worse to reject such a technical text, the wide-ranging consultation on which has involved and has been qualitatively informed by so many experts from the Member States.
Bart Staes
in writing. - (NL) I fully support this report. Every year an enormous quantity of dangerous goods, such as chlorine and petrol, is transported by inland waterway in the European Union. No rules have so far been drawn up on that, although there is legislation on the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail.
Legislation on the transport of dangerous goods by boat is badly needed, not just for safety reasons but also to regulate protection of the environment and public health at European level. Much of the transport of this kind is cross-border. Furthermore, European rules are also to the benefit of businesses, which at the moment have to comply with different national requirements in the various Member States. Inland waterways transport also emits less greenhouse gas. It is therefore very important to harmonise the requirements for the various forms of transport. It will then become more attractive to combine several modes, for instance with part of the journey being done by rail and the freight then continuing by boat. Not only is that efficient, it is above all sustainable. I therefore hope that transport firms will actually opt more often for a combination of different modes of transport.
Stanisław Jałowiecki
in writing. - (PL) I abstained from voting on the report by Mr Helmut Markov on road infrastructure safety management. The reason is that this report runs flagrantly counter to the principle of subsidiarity: 'a larger entity should not exercise functions that can be carried out by a smaller one'. This principle should be maintained with all possible care. Unfortunately, even in this House, I have often witnessed this principle being breached. I hope that on this occasion we managed to safeguard the principle at least partially, but how much time was spent doing this! Our legislative work was not directed towards the creation of good law, but to amending a poor legislative proposal. I am not, however, under any illusion that this will be the last attack on the principle of subsidiarity. This is paradoxical really, as these attacks come from the same quarter as the loudest criticisms of Ireland, a country that, a few days ago, rejected the Lisbon Treaty. People are just not making the connection that the citizens of that country said 'no' precisely because it is well known that this principle is regularly breached by the European Union. In fact, it is just this example, that of Ireland, that should make us aware that we cannot just ignore subsidiarity, or sacrifice it to what are allegedly higher goals, such as road safety. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, this will come back to haunt us.
Luca Romagnoli
in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be voting for Mr Markov's report. In my view, this a very comprehensive proposal which includes a whole range of aspects geared towards ensuring that safety is taken into account through all the stages of life of road infrastructure: from planning to design and use.
I agree with the respect of the subsidiarity principle in the proposal, leaving it to the discretion of Member States to decide how intensively 'road safety impact evaluations', road safety audits and safety inspections are to be applied.
The adoption of a legislative instrument geared to the safe development of the road network, through an approach which is not too inflexible, has to be seen as a positive result, whose effects will depend on the intensity with which it is applied. However, I feel that it is essential to lay down binding minimum standards, from which no derogations are possible, to be applied in all Member States.
Richard James Ashworth
in writing. - British Conservatives know how devastating the effects of a natural disaster can be. From the floods in the UK last year, we are aware of the human, economic and environmental damage that can be caused. We also understand the effects such natural disasters have upon other countries.
Nonetheless, we believe that individual Member States are best placed to respond rapidly and appropriately to disasters occurring within their own territory. We believe that the creation of a European Civil Protection Force would merely slow down the capacity for response by adding an extra bureaucratic burden. What those affected require is timely and necessary intervention, not more bureaucracy.
Finally, we cannot agree with further EU legislation in the area of disaster prevention and response. We consider that adequate legislation already exists at both Member State and EU level, and that financial aid is already available through the Solidarity Fund which serves, as it should, to mitigate structural and long-term damage.
In supporting this resolution in the final vote, we wish to make clear that we have also voted in favour of the amendments which called for the deletion of references to the Civil Protection Force and further EU legislation in this area.
Alessandro Battilocchio
in writing. - (IT) I am voting firmly in favour of this motion for a resolution on stepping up the European Union's disaster response capacity.
As a member of this Parliament's Committee on Development, I have had the opportunity to visit some of the world's poorest and most disaster-prone areas, in some cases struck (as in the case of the tsunami) by catastrophic natural disasters. I should like to take this opportunity to stress the first-rate work of our Development Commissioner, Louis Michel, who has always swiftly and efficiently resolved to show solidarity and offer cooperation when these tragic events have occurred.
As the resolution points out, however, the procedures laid down in our legislative framework are still too convoluted: mechanisms need to be streamlined and substantial resources set aside for emergencies which will, unfortunately, continue to occur. Parliament is giving a clear signal in that direction today. Now we have to move from words to deeds.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) Despite our vote in favour, we regret that some of our proposals have not been approved, particularly the one considering it essential to pay particular attention to the less favoured or 'convergence' regions in the event of natural disasters, in connection with regulating the Structural Funds, or those underscoring the importance of maintaining the eligibility of regional-scale disasters for the European Solidarity Fund and its adaptation to the specific nature of natural disasters such as drought and fires, in terms of time limits and eligible actions.
We believe it is positive, however, that others have been adopted in relation to the recognition of Mediterranean region natural disasters, namely drought and forest fires. Support mechanisms for the people affected and for reforestation that must also cover the prevention of further large-scale disasters are required, however, as is an EU-funded public agricultural insurance scheme to guarantee farmers a minimum income in the event of national disasters such as droughts, fires or floods.
The common agricultural policy must be radically modified to support small and medium-sized farmers and family farming, thereby stimulating agricultural production, biodiversity and use of the land.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) We believe that a framework for cooperation between Member States must be established for preventing, combating and minimising the consequences of disasters. Among other aspects, however, we disagree with the creation of a European civil protection force (particularly if it has a military dimension), since capacities and operational resources in this area must be subject to the jurisdiction of Member States, which have to guarantee the resources and strategies to provide a (rapid) response to needs and which know their territory better.
We consider the approval of our proposals advocating the following to be positive:
Community-level recognition of the specific nature of Mediterranean region natural disasters such as drought and forest fires, and the resulting adaptation of Community instruments in terms of prevention, research, risk management, civil protection and solidarity in order to improve each Member State's response;
The need for greater Community funding of prevention measures.
However, we regret the rejection of our proposals:
Highlighting the importance of maintaining the eligibility of regional disasters for the European Solidarity Fund;
Advocating the adaptation of the European Solidarity Fund to the specific nature of natural disasters such as drought and fires, in terms of time limits and eligible actions.
Margie Sudre
in writing. - (FR) I welcome the Commission's initiative in finally producing a document on improving the coherence, effectiveness and visibility of the EU's reaction to natural or man-made disasters.
Yet I am sorry this is still not a really practical proposal that is likely to boost Europe's capacity in the area of civil protection, including prevention and rapid reaction, in the event of major crises occurring within or outside the Union.
I thank MEPs for supporting my amendment on using the expertise relating to the geographical location of the outermost regions (OR) and the overseas countries and territories (OCT).
Thanks to those overseas communities, Europe is present off the African coast (Canaries, Madeira), in the Indian Ocean (Reunion), close to the American continent (Guyana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Azores), not forgetting the Pacific OCT (French Polynesia, New Caledonia).
Europe's overseas territories could become bases for pre-positioning vital products and logistics. That would make it easier to predict the available European human and material resources in the event of the need for urgent intervention outside the Union.
Geoffrey Van Orden
in writing. - Clearly there is great merit in improved coordination and readiness for mutual assistance of disaster response organisations in European countries. However, as always, the European Commission seizes on another opportunity to extend its own remit and responsibilities - here 'to develop a knowledge base, identify gaps', etc. The report, against the wishes of British Conservatives, also includes a call for legally-binding instruments. For these reasons I abstained in the vote.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) Despite the report's positive appraisal of 40 years of the Customs Union, many production sectors, particularly in Portugal, do not share the same view. Quite the contrary in fact. They know that the full opening of borders, in the name of free competition, has created profoundly unjust situations and has exacerbated structural deficits due to uneven development between the various countries.
Added to this inequality in productive capacity and in the development of the production process are other measures, policies and instruments that have made the situation worse, most significantly the creation of the internal market, international trade liberalisation, the Stability Pact within economic and monetary union and the neoliberalism of the Lisbon Strategy.
Consequently, although the report includes some positive proposals for reinforcing cooperation, its initial basis is unacceptable. Hence our vote against the report.
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) We take a positive view of this resolution, since we support the common commercial policy and customs legislation as a precondition for the functioning of the internal market. We would point out, however, that we are deeply critical of many of the trade agreements which the EU has actually concluded with third countries.
Kartika Tamara Liotard, Erik Meijer, Søren Bo Søndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson
in writing. - Whereas we fully support cooperation between the Member States to prevent the import of dangerous toys, drugs and other illegal or dangerous products, and whereas we fully support cooperation with trading partners to this end, we cannot vote in favour of this resolution due to the severe impact of the Customs Union on developing countries' trade.
The EU uses the Customs Union as a tool to negotiate favourable trade deals with developing countries while at the same time imposing high tariffs on products that are seen as unwanted competition for EU products. This policy is hampering the potential for economic growth in developing countries.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) This report begins by supporting the range of liberalisation packages for the electricity and natural gas markets, pushing for their privatisation even though they are strategic sectors for development and social progress. As is well known, the application of these packages in Portugal has exacerbated supply problems and increased consumer prices, and has also increased unemployment and job insecurity in the sector.
The European Commission is now seeking to gloss over the problems its strategy has created by presenting the 'European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers'. Despite the limited number of rights it refers to, we do not disagree with this Charter. The question is whether it will be adhered to by the sector's controlling economic groups, which Community policies are increasingly subservient to. Hence our abstention in the final vote on this report.
Małgorzata Handzlik
in writing. - (PL) The report that has been adopted on a European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers significantly increases the rights of energy consumers. More information will be made available to consumers, which will make it easier to choose between suppliers and various supply options. The Charter is a very important step in the liberalisation of the energy market.
I am convinced that clearer and more readable information given to consumers will make it possible for consumers to make the best choices. This is particularly important when energy prices are constantly rising and are becoming an area of ever-greater concern to consumers.
As a result of the solution that has been accepted, it will be easier to compare offers and real energy usage and this will encourage consumers to change suppliers if they are dissatisfied with the service offered. The result of this will be real competition between energy suppliers, greater concern for customer satisfaction and greater possibilities for consumers to have an impact on the decisions made by energy companies.
I believe that the Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers will, slowly but surely, help to change the energy market, which is something that we have been looking forward to for a long time. Let us not forget that consumers are the most important part of the internal market and they expect us to make real changes.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
in writing. - (RO) I voted for Ms. De Vits' report regarding the European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers. Given the ever higher prices for energy, it is necessary to ensure the supply of citizens with lower income and of people living in remote regions, where energy markets are smaller and non-competitive. Member States should take actions as soon as possible to define these groups of consumers clearly and promote and support actions, for instance social tariffs, to ensure the continuity of their access to electricity and natural gas.
I voted for amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 submitted by the Group of European Specialists. They stated the need to introduce social tariffs, to quarterly inform consumers about their own energy consumption and requested the informing of the public about the provisions of the European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers. I regret these amendments were not adopted.
The protection of energy consumers should rely on joint actions of the Union and Member States in the future as well. The European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers is a way to support the citizens in order for them to obtain information about their rights in a more efficient and simple way.
Geoffrey Van Orden
in writing. - I am strongly in favour of consumers being able to obtain secure, safe, reliable and sustainable supplies of gas and electricity at reasonable prices. National Regulatory Authorities should play an important role in this. However, I oppose the efforts by the European Commission to move into this area, to extend its powers and remit through 'studies', a 'Charter' and 'harmonisation', and I do not recognise the concept of 'Citizen of the Union'. For these reasons I abstained in the vote.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) We consider it positive that the European Parliament has criticised the European Commission proposal seeking to amend the rules on the marketing of poultrymeat, only to authorise the marketing of such meat that has undergone anti-microbial treatment for human consumption.
In practice this European Commission proposal merely seeks to fulfil the USA's request for the European Union to authorise the importation of its poultrymeat that has been treated with chemicals or anti-microbial substances.
The European Commission is therefore disregarding the precautionary principle and is disregarding the adoption and strengthening of the food safety and hygiene standards that already exist at EU level. These are much higher than those in the USA, which only uses a cheap end-of-line solution which it now wants the European Union to accept so that it can sell its produce throughout Europe.
We therefore hope that the Council will not accept the European Commission's proposal.
Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) The chlorination of chicken has not proved harmful to health or harmful in any other way, and our policy decisions should always be evidence-based. In the interests of free trade, therefore, I have voted against this report, which I consider to be motivated by protectionism.
In view of the widespread disquiet among the public in the EU as regards chlorinated chicken, however, it is of the utmost importance that we get legal requirements for labelling so that every individual can choose to avoid this product, for example in shops or restaurants.
Mairead McGuinness
in writing. - I voted in favour of this resolution as it highlights one of the most pressing issues facing the EU internally and externally.
We have decided in the EU to push for high food production standards - conscious of the needs for food safety and quality.
We do not permit the use of chlorine dipping of chicken carcases within the EU for produce consumed in the EU and therefore it makes no sense to allow imports of US chicken into the EU which is so treated.
In recent months we have a similar problem with imports of beef from Brazil - where traceability standards fall far short of those in the EU.
We may face a similar problem when we ban caged egg production in the EU but end up importing from outside the EU powdered egg products produced in caged systems.
If the EU insists on internal standards, it must be prepared to defend them and stop imports which fail to meet our internal standards.
James Nicholson
in writing. - The Commission proposal to lift the ban on the importation of poultry treated with anti-microbial substances such as chlorine is extremely worrying. It must be recognised that these practices simply do not meet EU standards of food safety.
This proposal seems to be politically motivated and blatantly disregards the valid health and safety concerns of EU citizens. Assurances that this poultry will be labelled and clearly identifiable to the consumer are simply not adequate.
The use of anti-microbial substances in the treatment of poultry should not be promoted by the European Union in any way. This ban has been in place more than ten years and was originally implemented with good reason. Unfortunately, therefore, the Commission proposal to lift it represents a huge step backwards and is totally unacceptable.
Dimitrios Papadimoulis
The Commission must re-examine its original decision, which is based exclusively on commercial criteria and results in a crime against public health and consumer protection. We cannot ignore existing European legislation by making concessions to the Americans and putting commercial interests before public health. We are awaiting the response of the competent Commissioner for Health, Mrs Vassiliou, and the response of the Greek Government.
Alessandro Battilocchio
in writing. - (IT) Thank you Madam President. This resolution is an initial response to the very serious crisis which our Union's fisheries sector is experiencing as a result of the increasing price of oil. In recent days, I have personally visited various ports in my country and have seen a very difficult and complex situation to which we have to be able to provide swift and efficient answers.
The unprecedented increase in the price of oil risks bringing a whole sector to its knees. The Union has extraordinary funds for fisheries that can be used in particularly serious situations. I invite Commissioner Borg to take immediate action to ascertain whether such action by the Commission is advisable. Deeds and not words. Action and not promises. Among workers, I encountered a growing mistrust of the European institutions. Our task is to fill that gap and in particular to shoulder our responsibilities in the face of economic and social developments which may well precipitate a serious crisis.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) As stressed in a press release, we do not support this resolution because:
It does not respond to the immediate problem of workers' wages, failing to clarify that fishermen (workers) pay for fuel, and that this is why the problem affects them directly (as it does the owners of the vast majority of small vessels);
It disregards the EU's inertia and refusal to take the necessary decisions;
It does not table any specific proposals in relation to fuel prices (petrol and diesel) and as regards fish price formation at the initial point of sale;
It does not deplore a policy that takes advantage of escalating fuel prices to reduce and concentrate the sector even further, generate more unemployment, ensure the decline of a production sector and worsen the food and trade balances;
It falls well below positions adopted previously by the EP and proposed by the PCP;
In accordance with the recent proposals announced by the European Commission, and irrespective of one or two aspects which, if applied, could have positive effects for the sector, at bottom this resolution further encourages the scrapping of vessels and offers fishermen the alternative of giving up their occupation.
Because fisheries have a future, we call for measures such as the proposals in the resolution we presented to be adopted as a matter of urgency.
James Nicholson
in writing. - The fishing industry has faced many crises over the years, but none greater than at present, with rising fuel prices which are pushing the industry over the edge to the point where it can no longer survive.

The continuing spiralling price of oil could prove to be disastrous for many industries, but none is more vulnerable than the fishing industry, with jobs at sea and on shore at risk.
We must look into all the options which are available to us. One route that should be explored is reducing taxes in order to ensure that fuel costs come down.
May I ask the following question: if we do not have fishermen, where will the fish we require come from? Are we going to sit back and allow foreign imports to take over our markets and put our industry out of business?
Saving our fishing fleets and the industry in general will prove to be a massive challenge. However, I am confident that with good will and all-round cooperation it is possible. I welcome yesterday's statement from the Commission announcing its intention to provide emergency assistance to fishing fleets. I sincerely hope that these measures will be formally adopted by the Council of Fisheries Ministers next week and then swiftly implemented.
Margie Sudre
in writing. - (FR) The dramatic rise in the price of diesel oil, 300% since 2003 has made its full impact felt in the fisheries sector. With the continuously worsening crisis, many fishing undertakings are now in a very fragile financial state.
Fisheries are in fact a particularly important pillar in the economic and social development of the outermost regions. Moreover, they are hit all the harder by the rise in the price of fuel because of their remote geographical location. That is an unacceptable situation. The European Union has a duty to find a compromise.
The European Parliament has just sent out a strong signal to fishers. In calling for the official aid ceiling to be raised to EUR 100 000 per vessel and not per undertaking, in calling for the immediate application of emergency and social support measures and, lastly, in demanding the reorganisation of European Fund expenditure for fisheries, MEPs have made it clear to fishers that they have heard their distress call.
The Council of European fisheries ministers will be discussing these proposals on 23 and 24 June 2008. The European Union has no option but to restore the confidence of fishers in order to plug the huge hole that has recently appeared.
Adam Bielan
in writing. - (PL) Mr President, I would like to point out once again that there is no western company that is as closely linked with the state as Gazprom is with the Kremlin. At present we are faced with a cold political calculation. The domination of Gazprom in the energy sector will lead to another increase in energy prices in Europe. Russia will be able to force through even greater political concessions for supplies of gas and oil. We are already seeing the effects of high prices in the ever more frequent protests in Europe. We also have, fresh in our memories, the repeated closure of gas supplies to our eastern neighbours.
Mr President, I supported this resolution because I believe that Europe must begin to speak with one voice in its relations with Russia, because only in this way can we guarantee that the EU will be effective.
Luís Queiró
in writing. - (PT) It is well-known that Russia is an important strategic partner for the European Union, and our geography makes us dependent on each other. Diplomacy must therefore be used to find the best solutions for this unavoidable proximity. The need to cooperate, however, must not force us into a real or disguised blindness towards the serious problems Russia raises.
Internally it cannot be ignored that Russia is not a full democracy and that the rule of law does not ensure effective respect for human rights. Externally it is impossible to ignore the use of energy as a weapon in external relations, in particular by promoting EU disunity in this area, the equivocal role it has played in the Iranian issue, and its unwillingness to force China to commit itself to human rights, among others.
Europe's voice in relation to Russia must be that of a serious partner which is willing to cooperate, but which is not willing to compromise on core issues of democracy, human rights and security.
Andrzej Jan Szejna
in writing. - (PL) The complex relations between the European Union and Russia require well-managed and coherent diplomatic action.
The approaching EU-Russia summit arouses many emotions, as agreements are to be negotiated that are of great significance for both Russia and the European Union. Prior to this summit we must realise just how important it is for the future of the European Union that it should speak with one voice in the international arena. For this reason it is a shame that the people of Ireland put a question mark over the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in last week's referendum, as it is precisely this Treaty that contains the regulations that will make the European Union a credible partner in international relations.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) We voted in favour of this report, which contains several important proposals for protecting sheep and goat products, particularly in less favoured areas and mountain regions. We would like it to have gone further, however, particularly in protecting indigenous breeds and traditional cheese production. It is nevertheless essential for the European Commission and the Council to take account of these approved proposals and the debate in plenary, where we also explained our positions on this very important issue.
The revision of the CAP currently in progress must correct the problems created by the 2003 reform, particularly as regards the uncoupling of direct payments. I must also stress the importance of ensuring an additional payment for producers to support indigenous breeds of sheep and goat in particular. This payment must be reinforced in mountain regions and other specific areas in order to maintain biodiversity in agriculture, preserve these animals in sensitive areas and use the land in a natural way - an important contribution to environmental protection and forest fire prevention in southern Europe.
Mairead McGuinness
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report as it highlights the problems in the sheep sector, which is in terminal decline unless action is taken.
The Parliament has voted in favour of EU funding for electronic tagging of sheep and, while this is welcome, I would have preferred to see electronic tagging taken off the agenda until the future viability of sheep farming is secured.
In relation to the proposal for a task force, which was rejected by Parliament, there is now an onus on the Commission to upgrade its focus on the sheep sector and to report to the Parliament on progress or otherwise in implementing the proposals in this report.
Alessandro Battilocchio
in writing. - (IT) Thank you, Madam President, I am voting for the report by Zita Gurmai and would like to congratulate her on her excellent work.
In particular, I support the 'eSafety' initiative (www.esafetysupport.org ) within which the European Commission, the public authorities, the industry and other stakeholders are all working together to try to speed up the development and introduction of 'Intelligent Integrated Vehicle Safety Systems'. These systems use information and communication technologies with a view to increasing road safety and reducing the number of accidents on our roads. 'eSafety' is the first step in the 'Intelligent Car' initiative launched in 2006 by the European Commission. I believe that this is a path we should swiftly follow in order to promote the future growth of transport which will, in the Commission's words, be 'smarter, safer and cleaner'.
Zita Pleštinská
in writing. - (SK) Our dependence on transport grows every day. All citizens have the right to safe and sustainable mobility. The current progress in information and communication technologies enables us to manufacture and buy vehicles that are smarter, safer and cleaner. Consumers must have access to information that will enable them to make informed choices in favour of intelligent cars and it is important for these cars to become affordable.
Since the report by the rapporteur, Mrs Zita Gurmai, offers European citizens the opportunity to benefit from the potential road traffic safety in the near future, I voted in favour of it.
Road accidents are caused both by human error and by poor vehicle condition. By introducing intelligent technologies, 16% of accidents can be prevented. Modern systems can reduce the number of road accident fatalities by as much as one third. The Galileo programme also represents a significant contribution in this area.
As regards the full deployment of the pan-European in-vehicle emergency call system, the eCall system, the EU Member States have a large responsibility. The aim is to have a full-scale roll-out of eCall by 2010. Therefore, I would encourage the Member States that have not yet signed the eCall Memorandum of Understanding to do so now, in 2008.
Taking into account that, according to the statistics, there are 41 600 deaths on European roads every year, we need to launch a new era in the road sector. By saving any number of human lives we will be doing a lot for European citizens.
Brian Simpson
in writing. - My colleague, Zita Gurmai, has produced an excellent report and needs to be congratulated on her detailed work and the commitment she has shown.
The first intelligent car report is a flagship project within the Commission's strategic policy framework for information society and the media, and our rapporteur is right to recognise that intelligent vehicle systems could reduce the annual death toll, currently around 42 000, on the roads of the EU. She is also right to point out that, at present, many people cannot afford the new systems, so the need to bring down costs has to be a priority.
Electronic stability control technology, the use of portable or nomadic devices and work towards providing cleaner vehicles are all topics covered by the rapporteur.
This is an excellent report, and it has my full support.
Bernard Wojciechowski
in writing. - (PL) The Intelligent Car Initiative is a very valuable initiative. It is important to use modern technology as much as possible to make transport safer and more efficient. Estimates indicate that if all cars were fitted with electronic stability control (ESC) there could be as many as four thousand fewer fatalities in the EU each year. Another important safety feature, which has not yet been generally introduced, is the pan-European in-vehicle accident notification system known as eCall. Research indicates that its introduction throughout the European Union could reduce traffic fatalities by two and a half thousand each year. The final issue that should be considered is the large amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases emitted by cars, comprising 12% of total CO2 emissions in the EU. I think that cars with the lowest CO2 emissions should be marketed using social campaigns. We should also introduce more restrictive regulations to reduce emissions of harmful gases by cars.
President
That concludes the explanations of vote.
(The sitting was suspended at 12.45 and resumed at 15.00.)


13. Progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU (
- Before the vote:
Philip Bushill-Matthews
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, our group had intended to ask for three additional roll calls but, for whatever reason, they got lost in transit.
I would like, through you, Mr President - I have checked with the secretariat that it was in order to ask today - to have these three instated. They are on: paragraph 2, Amendment 4D; paragraph 6 of the original text; and finally, after paragraph 36, our Amendment 12. I hope you will appreciate that this is a very sensitive dossier and we would like to be able to place on record not just what we are against, but also what we are in favour of.
(The President established that there were no objections to this amendment)
- Before the vote on Amendment 5:
Sophia in 't Veld
Mr President, we have been speaking about countries which have not adequately implemented or transposed the Anti-Discrimination Directive but there is one country which has not implemented it at all and therefore I would propose the following oral amendment: 'Calls on the Czech Government to effectively transpose the Employment Directive and for the Czech Parliament to overrule the veto of the Czech President'.
(The oral amendment was not accepted)
- Before the vote on Amendments 1, 16 and 17:
Richard Howitt
Mr President, very briefly, I of course support your discretion in interpreting the Rules, but it seems very strange for the PPE-DE Group to want to introduce roll-call votes at the last moment after the deadline has expired because they say that they want to positively explain their case, when their amendments seek to delete - to delete - paragraphs from this report. I think that they are trying to cover up the cracks in their own group rather than actually say anything positive in combating discrimination.
President
Mr Howitt, it is probably the case that the vote referred to was filed too late, but I did ask you, and in this respect you were too late in asking to speak. If you had asked straight away, perhaps we would have voted differently.