Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) As one of the shadow rapporteurs for the telecommunications package, I would like to say, following the successful vote, that I am delighted that this important amendment to internal market regulations in the field of electronic communications in particular will bring another fair process in respect of disconnections from the internet. I am gratified that the Council has finally agreed to our proposals. Our guarantees will ensure that disconnections from the internet will apply to real criminals such as terrorists or distributors of child pornography and not to ordinary users.
Hannu Takkula
(FI) Mr President, in my opinion, this legislation is necessary, as we move towards a single market in electronic communications. It has already been decided under the Treaty of Lisbon that this is the direction to take.
I am nevertheless very concerned about the importance of ensuring the basic rights of users of the internet and free access to it. One worry is its illegal use and its abuse, and, as we know, one of the biggest issues and problems at the moment is piracy. Piracy is increasing greatly all the time, and one of the main areas in which it operates is the internet.
I hope that in future, we can invest in ensuring that those who produce creative work are properly remunerated for it and that piracy does not endanger their livelihood, as is common at present on the internet when files are downloaded illegally. This is the right step and direction to take, though in future we should pay special attention to the rights of creative artists and prevent piracy.
Daniel Hannan
Mr President, see how stealthily, how silkily, by how many small steps, how insidiously and invidiously we have moved towards the establishment of a pan-European federal police force.
When Europol was first established in the early 1990s, it was presented as a clearing house - as a regional branch of Interpol, if you like. Since then, bit by bit, it has been given executive and policing powers.
First these were portrayed as being narrowly restricted to the field of cross-border counter-terrorist activities. That, of course, is how the FBI got started, and bit by bit it eventually extended its remit and agglomerated powers until it had become a federal pan-continental police force.
A similar process is now at work with Europol, which has gradually extended its remit to cover a whole series of crimes that are national in nature - but with the rather fascinating oversight that its personnel still have diplomatic immunity; in other words, they cannot be held to account for abuse of police powers.
When did we ever vote for this? When did we ever agree to set up a pan-European system of criminal justice with its own arrest warrant, its own police force, its own prosecuting magistracy and its own pan-European public prosecutor?
I think we ought to have the courtesy to ask our people, our voters, whether they approve.
Daniel Hannan
Mr President, the best thing we could do for the Balkan and Caucasian republics is to admit them unconditionally into a customs union, to open our markets to their products. Those are countries ideally placed to price themselves into the market. They have educated and industrious workforces but they have relatively cheap costs and therefore competitive exports.
Instead of doing that, we are freezing out their produce in a number of key areas, and then to salve our consciences, we are giving them government to government financial assistance. In doing so, we of course make them dependencies; we make them satrapies. It is not only the Russians who think of these countries as their 'near abroad'. This is a phrase that also seems to apply sometimes in Brussels.
We drag their politicians and their decision makers into a system of the massive redistribution of wealth and we thereby Europeanise them in advance because they are learning what we in this House know all too well, which is that the primary function of the European Union these days is to act as a massive device to take money away from taxpayers and give it to the people lucky enough to be working inside the system.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that we need an advanced information system for the civilian administration linking the customs and police authorities of the Member States. We owe it to the citizens of the Union to combat more effectively imports of counterfeit and also hazardous products into our market from third countries. In contrast to most Members, I believe that the Commission's proposal will ensure greater protection for personal data and, at the same time, a more effective fight against organised crime. I therefore did not vote for the 90 draft amendments of the committee or for the report as a whole.
I would, of course, like to call on the Commission to negotiate a similar early warning system to RAPEX China with other states as well, such as India, Vietnam, Russia or Turkey, so that hazardous or counterfeit products can be seized before entering European countries. I note that since 2006, it has been possible to conclude international agreements with third countries concerning the cooperation of supervisory bodies in the field of consumer protection and I am very disappointed that the Commission has so far failed to make use of this option.
Written explanations of vote
Maria Da Graça Carvalho
I am pleased that the European Parliament has approved the Telecoms Reform Package, thus consolidating the rights of consumers and contributing to greater access to information and freedom of expression. In order to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda, we need to provide sufficient incentives for investment in new high-speed networks, so as to support innovation in content-based internet services and to enhance the EU's competitiveness at international level. Promoting sustainable investment in the development of such networks is absolutely crucial, as this will both ensure competitiveness and increase consumer choice. In order to guarantee investment in new technologies in less developed regions, regulations relating to electronic communications should be streamlined with other policies such as State aid policy, cohesion policy or the objectives of a broader industrial policy.
Carlos Coelho
I support the Telecoms Reform Package because I think that the internet is an essential tool for education, the exercise of freedom of expression and access to information. This initiative definitively establishes the idea that internet access and usage fall within the fundamental rights of European citizens. I would like to thank Mrs Bastos, who was the only Portuguese MEP involved in this process. I advocate freedom on the internet, without this meaning a lack of any regulation whatsoever. As in the real world, the virtual world of the internet is the setting for illicit and illegal activities, including downloading video and music files, inciting terrorism and child pornography. Despite the opposition of many national governments, Parliament has ensured that all users can benefit from the rights and guarantees enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). This means that any restriction of rights or fundamental freedoms of internet users, such as cutting off access, must respect the ECHR and the general principle of the law, and must, first and foremost, have been authorised by a court order, so as to uphold the procedural safeguards, presumption of innocence and the right to privacy, without prejudice to specific mechanisms in cases which are deemed urgent in the interests of state security.
Marielle De Sarnez
Prior court approval: that is what we wanted to obtain. With this compromise, we have at least guaranteed the best legal protection possible at this stage. The EU's message is now clear: access to the internet is a fundamental right, and precise and binding procedures will have to be followed to ensure that internet users can actually be sentenced for copyright infringement. It is now up to the national judges and to the European Court of Justice judges to enforce the right of all internet users to enjoy a 'prior, fair and impartial procedure'. The lack of clarity of many provisions will require close monitoring during the process of transposing and applying this important legislation. With the Treaty of Lisbon now ratified, the European Parliament will be able, as colegislator, to continue to defend the neutrality of the internet. Today's vote is just one stage in a long process. We will have to continue to defend internet users' rights and, in particular, to define them better. We will also have to urgently take up the crucial issue of internet copyright.
Edite Estrela
I voted in favour of Mrs Trautmann's report as I believe that the current agreement goes far beyond what was possible in the earlier stages of the process, particularly with regard to consumer rights. I believe that the introduction of measures to safeguard rights and guarantees on freedom of expression and information given to users with landline or mobile telephones and internet users is absolutely essential. It is important to streamline the internal telecoms market by encouraging competition between companies while, at the same time, consolidating the autonomy of national regulatory bodies from their respective governments. It was equally important to ensure more modern management of the radio spectrum by devising techniques which allow the easier provision of these services in rural areas.
Diogo Feio
I welcome the compromise reached between Parliament and the Council on introducing into the framework directive adequate protection for users in cases of restriction of access to services and applications through electronic communication networks.
I think that the rule of law dictates that no one's access to information and use of electronic communication networks can be made subject to conditions without this being done in strict accordance with the principle of the presumption of innocence, and restriction of access must be preceded by prior fair and impartial proceedings which safeguard the right to be heard and the right to effective judicial protection.
Furthermore, I believe that it is especially important to support the independence mechanisms of national regulatory authorities, so that these can regulate the market effectively, promoting fair competition between operators, as well as cooperation mechanisms between the various European regulatory bodies, so that we can bring about a more transparent and more competitive market, which will represent a step up for users in the quality of services offered.
Ilda Figueiredo
At the end of October, the Council adopted the majority of the texts negotiated with Parliament on the so-called Telecoms Package, with a few exceptions, which were included in the Trautmann report.
This text continued to be negotiated in the Conciliation Committee, where the text which we are now to vote upon was accepted.
It is true that the agreed text contains some of the proposals tabled by our group, defending the rights of users. However, it does not go far enough, as it allows exceptions to the procedural safeguards in urgent cases, although these must be substantiated and in accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Yet the principal problem with the text is its scope, as it refers only to the restrictions that may be imposed by Member States, and not the restrictions imposed by private companies.
Indeed, the European Union seems to be more interested in creating an internal telecoms market solely to serve the interests of the economic groups which dominate the sector than in defending the rights and fundamental freedoms of the end users. We have no choice but to disagree with such an attitude.
Bruno Gollnisch
I abstained from the vote on this final version of the telecoms package because it is unsatisfactory. It is, however, better than nothing. It does not protect internet users from the abuses of freedom-destroying laws such as the first version of the Hadopi Law in France, or from the wrath of administrative authorities duly authorised to carry out such abuses. Nevertheless, it does give internet users legal means of defending themselves. It is, unfortunately, alarming that it has come to this: that we should have to rely on the European Union, which could not care less about what the citizens think and of which the vast majority of acts are essentially aimed at satisfying the interests of lobbies of all kinds, to provide Europeans with a minimum level of freedom of information and of expression.
Sylvie Guillaume
Although the telecoms sector is going through an unprecedented period of development, it was crucial to support the report by my colleague, Mrs Trautmann, as it will mean that consumers are offered better services at fairer prices.
I welcome the fact that this text will increase users' rights to universal services, via clearer contracts, a more accessible emergency telephone number, a hotline for missing children, greater consideration of the rights of disabled people, and a guarantee of number portability. It will also make it possible to protect privacy better and to combat illegal practices on the internet by improving the security and the integrity of electronic communication networks.
Lastly, it is gratifying to have obtained a legally sound solution offering European citizens procedural safeguards such as observance of the inter partes principle, the presumption of innocence and the right to be heard, and which obliges the Member States to comply with those safeguards before taking any measures aimed at restricting internet access.
Małgorzata Handzlik
Adoption of the Trautmann report means that the provisions of the Telecoms Package will shortly enter into force. This is good news for consumers, whose rights are strengthened by this legislation. The possibility of moving a telephone number to another network in one day, the increase in transparency of tariffs and the strengthening of personal data protection are some of the many positive results of the package.
What is more, the European Parliament has taken account of the fears of European citizens concerning internet users being cut off from the internet. The European Parliament upheld the view that access to the internet is the right of every citizen. In relation to this, disconnecting a citizen from the internet will be possible only in justified cases, while respecting the principles of innocence and the right to privacy, and following a fair and impartial trial. This solution will certainly please the supporters of open access to the internet.
Jacky Hénin
I have to say that the proposed compromise between the Council and Parliament offers no adequate legal safeguards for users.
Although the text maintains that the Member States cannot impose restrictions on internet end-users, it does pave the way for consumers to be restricted by access providers without any prior decision by a judicial body.
This state of affairs undermines people's rights.
Our group's amendments aimed at upholding citizens' rights have not been adopted.
Lastly, the package is subject to the 'law' of the internal market. It is therefore the European Court of Justice that will decide on 'conflicts of interest'. Freedom of expression will therefore, in all likelihood, be subject to the law of the internal market, as too many recent examples show.
Thanks to strong pressure from users and citizens, user safeguards have been gained, but they remain inadequate in the opinion of the left. We cannot accept dishonest compromises where the citizens' freedom of expression is concerned.
Ian Hudghton
in writing. - I voted in favour of the compromise package on telecommunications. Whilst, as is the nature of compromises, the package is not perfect, I believe that it is a step in the right direction and will bring about an improvement in consumers' rights.
Nuno Melo
An affirmative vote may be justified simply by the fact that the new European legislation on the telecoms sector supports the rights of landline and mobile telephone and internet users, and boosts competition.
The most pertinent of these new rules is the reinforcement of consumer rights, guarantees of internet access and the protection of personal data, given that the EU is increasingly an area of rights and freedoms.
Willy Meyer
I voted against the framework directive on electronic communications networks and services because I think that it represents an attack on freedom of expression and the civil rights of citizens. By adopting this directive, the European Union is allowing internet services to be cut off without the need for a judicial order. As a defender of civil rights, I am bound to be opposed to this decision. It gives powers to private companies to introduce restrictions on the use of the internet, and is one more example of the liberalisation of the European telecommunications market.
Also, the fact that non-judicial bodies (the nature and composition of which has not been specified) can decide to cut off internet services due to alleged illegal practices (which have not been determined either) is a breach of the principle that citizens are innocent until proven guilty, and opens the door to operators being the ones who restrict users' rights, establish content filters and make some pages faster to the detriment of others, which would mean a de facto end to the neutrality of the Web.
Rareş-Lucian Niculescu
I voted in favour of this package because of its unquestionable usefulness. However, I appreciate that it is unclear as to what a fair and impartial procedure will mean in practice in terms of the possible situations for restricting internet access. I believe that it would have been preferable to make a prior judicial ruling compulsory.
Teresa Riera Madurell
I voted in favour of a report that is the culmination of all the work done around the 'telecommunications package', two directives and a regulation that represent a fundamental step forward in the development of the information society and the protection of users' rights.
This new legislation also provides clear rules and the necessary legal certainty to encourage new investment, which, in turn, will make it possible to offer new services and develop new economic activities. These provisions will therefore have a major economic impact. The text that was finally adopted also guarantees greater respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of consumers to access the Web, by providing legal certainty in Amendment 138.
The compromise reached refers to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, while Amendment 138 opted for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The latter option has a clear disadvantage: the United Kingdom, Poland and now the Czech Republic have introduced a derogation protocol that prevents the Court of Justice of the European Union and the respective national courts from acting in the event of a breach, while all the Member States are signatories to the Convention and there is no interference with national legal structures.
Georgios Toussas
The centre left and centre right political forces in the European Parliament voted in favour of the legislative 'package' on telecommunications and the internet on the basis of the criteria of competition and security, in other words, to secure the profits of the monopolies and restrict workers' freedoms and rights. The same political forces, while referring with demagogic bombast to users' rights and free access to the internet in the face of the highhandedness of monopoly business groups, supported the Commission's reactionary proposals, thereby helping to promote the interests of capital.
The decision by the European Parliament promotes capitalist restructurings that will enable companies to grow to gigantic proportions and develop the 'green economy', so that they will reign supreme at European and global level, thereby multiplying their profits to the detriment of the workers and users of their services.
The monopolies are being given legal rights to monitor and restrict users' access to the internet. At the same time, their profits are being secured thanks to the harmonisation of the radio spectrum and the 'operating divide' between landline and internet services and the necessary infrastructure. We voted against the motion for a resolution by the Council and the European Parliament and we stand by the workers and users of electronic communications who continue to claim their rights and freedoms against the reactionary policy of the EU and the parties of capital.
David Casa
in writing. - In this case, the proposal aims at creating a framework that will provide for the harmonisation of rules relating to the collection and dissemination of statistics when it comes to the use as well as the selling of pesticides. There are a number of important definitions and clarifications that have been made and, therefore, I have decided to vote in favour of this report.
Edite Estrela
I welcome the agreement reached on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning statistics on pesticides which will allow for the creation of a legal framework and the establishment of harmonised rules for the collection and dissemination of statistics on the sale and use of pesticides, with a view to the sustainable use of the latter.
Peter Jahr
I welcome the fact that the regulation concerning statistics on plant protection products will complete the legislative package of European plant protection policy, which can then enter into force. In order to minimise the risks to people and the environment involved in the use of plant protection products, we need harmonised risk indicators based on comparable and reliable data from all the Member States. That is exactly what will now be possible. However, the collection of this data must not lead to more bureaucracy and thus to greater burdens for our farmers and administrations. Where possible, the existing data should be used and there should be no new data collection. It will be our responsibility to ensure, when monitoring the implementation of the regulation, that bureaucratic expenditure is kept to an absolute minimum. On another note, I would have preferred the term 'plant protection products', as originally used in the regulation, to have been retained. In German, the term 'pesticides' has completely negative connotations and generally refers to the improper use of plant protection products. Unfortunately, the regulation will now contribute to this misinterpretation.
Elisabeth Köstinger
I very warmly welcome the fact that the regulation concerning statistics on plant protection products will ensure that there is now a common legal framework for the collection and distribution of data on the marketing and use of pesticides. It is beyond doubt that minimising risks to human health and environmental protection take priority. Harmonised risk indicators and reliable data from all the Member States will now make that possible. That said, I would like to emphatically point out that any additional administrative expenditure on the collection of data must not be a cost borne by our farmers. By refraining from re-collecting data that has already been taken, we can exploit synergies that will lead to a reduction in bureaucracy and additional burdens.
Miroslav Mikolášik
Pesticides, especially pesticides used in agriculture, have an important impact on the health of humans and the environment and there should therefore be significant further reductions in their use. Lengthy experience with the collection of data on the sale and use of pesticides has shown the need for harmonised methods of collecting statistical data, not only at the national level but also at the Community level. This regulation creates, in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, a common framework for the systematic creation of Community statistics on the marketing and use of pesticides.
I therefore consider the joint text of the regulation of the European Parliament and the Council concerning statistics on pesticides, which has been approved by the Conciliation Committee, as an appropriate measure which, in the final analysis, will contribute to the sustainable use of pesticides and a huge overall reduction in the risks to health and the environment, as well as adequate protection for crops.
Rovana Plumb
I want to emphasise that pesticides must be used in a more viable manner, which also entails a significant overall reduction in the risks involved. Pesticides must also be used in a manner compatible with the need to protect the harvests. However, pesticides can only be used without close monitoring of both their quantity and quality if a reliable database is available. The availability and use of harmonised, comparable Community statistics on pesticide sales play an important role in the drafting and monitoring of legislation and Community policies in the context of the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. Such statistics are necessary for evaluating the European Union's sustainable development policies and for calculating the significant indicators concerning the risks to health and the environment associated with the use of pesticides. This is why I voted in favour of this report.
Oldřich Vlasák
I voted in favour of the draft legislative resolution of the European Parliament on the joint proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council concerning statistics on pesticides, which was approved by the Conciliation Committee, because in my view, it will bring significant benefits. It harmonises and, in particular, simplifies legislation in the area of statistics on pesticides. It harmonises statistical surveys and thereby enables greater comparability of data, offering the possibility of better and broader use of the administrative resource of collected data, which will reduce costs and the administrative burden on farmers and other entities in the agricultural sector. The draft will also provide greater protection for confidential data. Moreover, this standard will, in the final analysis, lead to greater awareness of pesticides and their impact on public health which I personally consider to be a key issue.
Jean-Pierre Audy
I voted in favour of the legislative resolution on the codification of the 1995 regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks. I am sorry that, in view of the development and the complexity of the texts, the Commission has not revised its position dating from 1 April 1987 consisting of instructing its staff that all legislative acts should be codified after no more than 10 amendments, stressing that this is a minimum requirement and that departments should endeavour to codify at even shorter intervals the texts for which they are responsible. In this particular case, we are consolidating the regulations from 1999, two regulations from 2004 and one regulation from 2005. I consider that the policy of consolidating Community law should be one of the European Commission's priorities and that the current situation is unsatisfactory, particularly in relation to the Member States, the citizens and, more generally, all users of the law: magistrates, lawyers, advisers, authorities, and so on.
Andreas Mölzer
I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks. These networks are very important to the development of Europe's traffic infrastructure. The new regulation will clearly regulate the conditions and procedures for granting Community financial aid, which will provide the corresponding legal certainty, in particular, for the States and regions that plan such projects.
Diogo Feio
As an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.
However, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.
I do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report requesting the Council withdraw its proposal.
Bruno Gollnisch
We voted against the rejection of this series of reports by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, not because of the content of the regulatory proposals concerned, which relate to Europol and other criminal police activities, but for the sake of form. Indeed, the only reason why the majority of this House wants to refer these reports back to committee is so that it can wait for the Treaty of Lisbon to enter into force. With this treaty, these matters will fall under the ordinary legislative procedure, which means equality between Parliament and the Council in legislative terms, exclusive right of initiative for the European Commission and, worse still, jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice.
This is unacceptable as far as we are concerned. In the borderless world that you have created, and of which criminals, illegal migrants and traffickers take full advantage, police cooperation is vital. However, it is crucial that it remains within the scope of intergovernmental cooperation.
Nuno Melo
As the third pillar, this is an extremely pertinent matter for the security of the European area, so I agree that this issue should be assessed under the Treaty of Lisbon, given its future bearing on cooperation policy.
Andreas Mölzer
In principle, close cooperation between the various authorities to fight crime is a desirable thing. However, there is a complete lack of any regulation of data protection in the planned unrestricted access for all authorities and it is not even clear what rights of investigation the proposed data protection officer will actually have. The SWIFT agreement, too, has major data protection concerns associated with it. The European Parliament must be given the chance to curb this data protection rights fiasco on behalf of the citizens of Europe. I therefore voted in favour of the report.
Vilija Blinkevičiūt
I support the opinion of the rapporteur and agree that legislation on EUROPOL should be considered by common accord together with the European Parliament and the Council. Especially important attention should be paid to personal data protection. Indeed, it is not sufficiently clear whether there are strong protection safeguards for the transfer of personal data to third parties. Does this not infringe citizens' rights to privacy and can people have faith in the protection of their data? This matter should be thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the Council should submit a new proposal following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Diogo Feio
As an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.
However, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.
I do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report requesting the Council withdraw its proposal.
Nuno Melo
Without forgetting the importance of the European Police Office (Europol) and notwithstanding the general support which it should have, as the third pillar, this is an extremely pertinent matter for the security of the European area.
Hence, I agree that this issue should be assessed under the Treaty of Lisbon, given its bearing on cooperation policy.
Diogo Feio
As an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.
However, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.
I do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report requesting the Council withdraw its proposal.
Petru Constantin Luhan
The Albrecht report brings up for debate the list of third States and organisations with which Europol is intending to conclude agreements. The list of third States also includes the Republic of Moldova, for example, while the list of organisations with which Europol is intending to conclude agreements should also include the Regional Centre for Combating Cross-border Crime, with its headquarters in Bucharest, which is in negotiations with Europol aimed at concluding a cooperation agreement. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has decided to vote against this report as a group during this plenary session so that it can review the dossier after the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force. It is precisely because this is such an important topic that we have decided to devote a huge amount of attention to it and we will debate it starting from next year on a codecision basis with the Council.
Carlos Coelho
Within the framework of Europol, we have been presented with four initiatives which aim to introduce new rules on information confidentiality, implementing matters relating to the regulation of Europol's relationships with its partners, including the exchange of personal data and classified information, determining the list of third countries and organisations with which agreements may be made, and implementing rules for the analysis work files.
Given that the Treaty of Lisbon will enter into force in a matter of days, and new prerogatives relating to police cooperation are to be conferred on Parliament, the four rapporteurs have sought the rejection of the proposals on legal grounds. I therefore support their stance of not commenting on the substance of these proposals, rejecting them and asking the Commission and the Council to make a declaration in plenary pledging to present a new decision within a period of six months from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. In practical terms, it is worth recalling that in relation to the current incentives, being a mere matter of consulting Parliament, the Council will be able to establish a position before the end of the year, since the four steps for implementation will enter into force from 1 January 2010.
Diogo Feio
As an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.
However, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.
I do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report requesting the Commission withdraw its proposal.
Nuno Melo
Without forgetting the importance of the European Police Office (Europol) and notwithstanding the general support which it should have, as the third pillar, this is an extremely pertinent matter for the security of the European area.
Hence, I agree that this issue should be assessed under the Treaty of Lisbon, given its future bearing on cooperation policy. I therefore believe any decision on this sensitive matter is premature as long as the treaty is not yet in force, as it deals with the security of the European area.
Elena Oana Antonescu
Crime is continually on the increase in the European Union. We are facing a host of organised crime networks, as well as computer crime, which is becoming ever more widespread. As a result, the European crime prevention policy must be consolidated and strengthened, while Member States need to cooperate better and more closely, based on a powerful common strategy in this area. The progress made by the crime prevention network over the last few years has been rather limited. In fact, its potential is far from having been achieved as yet. Widening the network's responsibilities, establishing a clear, simple, effective administrative structure, as well as ensuring the involvement of civil society, universities and NGOs, are the conditions which are key to the successful operation of such a network.
Parliament is going to acquire proper law-making power and will be able, along with the Council, to make decisions on measures, in accordance with the codecision procedure, aimed at encouraging and supporting the actions of Member States in the area of crime prevention. I therefore support the rapporteur's proposal to reject the initiative and debate this important dossier after the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force.
David Casa
in writing. - The report in question asks that the modifications to the current system of the European Crime Prevention Network be rejected. I believe and agree with the rapporteur that there are a number of areas that require improvement even with regard to the proposal. Nevertheless, the interim measures are adequate in order to effect important alterations as soon as possible. It is for these reasons that I have decided to vote against this report.
Carlos Coelho
The European Crime Prevention Network was created in 2001, yet up until now, it has still not produced particularly good results, due to numerous organisational failures which have prevented it from effectively reaching its full potential, having already been subject to internal review on two occasions. The present initiative attempts to revoke that decision made in 2001, proposing the restructuring of the network, which I see as being somewhat limited and clearly inadequate as a solution to the current problems.
In view of this, we need to embark upon a reform of the network that is more serious and more ambitious in terms of its organisation. The Swedish Presidency's insistence that Parliament make a decision before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force is, therefore, unacceptable, not only because it is a weak initiative, but also because it asks Parliament to renounce the institutional prerogatives related to crime prevention conferred upon it by the Treaty of Lisbon a matter of days before the new treaty enters into force.
Diogo Feio
As an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.
However, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.
I do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. I am therefore voting in favour of this report, and ask that the Council does not formally adopt the initiative prior to the imminent entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Nuno Melo
The European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) was created in 2001 due to a need to establish measures and exchange activities to prevent criminality, as well as strengthening the network of national authorities responsible for preventing crime.
Seven years later, following an external assessment of the EUCPN, the conclusion was that there was much room for improvement in the way the institution works.
The development of different aspects of crime prevention is extremely important at EU level, as is supporting the prevention of, and fight against, instances of national and local crime.
In view of the sensitive nature of the matters touched upon in this report, I agree with the decision to seek a new proposal from the Council under the codecision procedure, in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon.
Diogo Feio
As an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.
However, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.
I do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report, and request that the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Spain withdraw their initiative.
Sylvie Guillaume
I voted in favour of the in 't Veld report, of the Kirkhope, Albrecht and Díaz de Mera García Consuegra reports on a package of measures concerning Europol, and of the Alfano report on the European Crime Prevention Network, calling for the rejection of the Council's proposals on these matters. The aim of rejecting the proposals was to defend the European Parliament's prerogatives on such sensitive issues as police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The European Parliament has been asked to give its verdict within a particularly short timeframe on what are, nonetheless, very sensitive matters. However, nothing justifies such hasty action, unless, after 1 December, the procedures carried out under the third pillar will lapse and will have to become the subject of a new procedure under the ordinary 'legislative procedure'. We are rejecting these proposals in order to send out a strong message to the Council that we are unhappy with the pressure being put on the MEPs and with the obvious desire to circumvent the new procedures for including the European Parliament in the legislative debate.
Ian Hudghton
in writing. - In line with the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, I voted against the draft decision. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon imminent, decisions in this area should be taken under the new legislative procedures.
Jörg Leichtfried
I am voting against the adoption of the EUROPOL package. I voted in favour of rejecting the entire package as I think it is scandalous that the Commission and the Council should still be attempting to push the package through before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force.
David Casa
in writing. - Georgia has been subjected to an incredible downturn, especially following the 2008 conflict with Russia. Due to Georgia's strategic importance, among other reasons, the Commission has proposed providing macro-financial assistance to Georgia. Although I agree that the Parliament requires more information on the matter, I have decided to support the rapporteur's recommendation and thus vote in favour of the report.
João Ferreira
We have always advocated the need for the EU to give solidarity aid to countries that need it, and argued that this aid should be directed towards projects which are of real interest to the people of the country.
Yet the 'aid' given by the EU seems to have had little to do with solidarity. The interests of big money, whether economic or financial, and the major powers always supersede the interests of solidarity.
This is also the case for the aid to Georgia, upon which we have just voted. Financial assistance is predominantly aimed at funding the recommendations made by the International Monetary Fund and its policy of structural adjustment, that is, its insistence on the very same neo-liberal policies that brought about the economic and financial crisis that this country is now facing.
These same reasons are also behind our abstention on the remaining reports. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the funding decided upon will not go towards the rearmament of Georgia, albeit indirectly, following the attack carried out by Georgian troops against the people of the provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which led to war with Russia.
We could not condone a decision that could lead to greater militarisation in the relations between countries in the Caucasus region, whose energy, wealth and geostrategic value is important to the EU and its monopolies.
Jacek Olgierd Kurski
Georgia was brutally attacked in August 2008 by the armies of the Russian Federation and, besides suffering damage on a large scale and numerous fatalities, has also experienced a serious deterioration of its economic condition. The European Union cannot remain passive in the face of Georgia's economic problems, and should be ready to give Georgia special macro-financial assistance to enable the country to rebuild after last year's Russian invasion. Financial assistance from Brussels will also help Georgia combat the effects of the world economic and financial crisis. Taking into account the above circumstances, as well as Georgia's strategic significance for the European Union in the European Neighbourhood Policy and the newly established Eastern Partnership, I endorsed the resolution on a Council Decision providing macro-financial assistance to Georgia.
Nuno Melo
The macro-financial assistance programme is vital for improving the financial stability of European nations that have recently emerged from armed conflict, the vicissitudes of which have left them with financial difficulties in terms of budget deficits and their balance of payments.
This assistance is crucial for the process of reconstruction in these countries, provided that it is carried out in a peaceful manner, something that is possible only with international assistance. This assistance also ensures that these areas of instability do not jeopardise security and peace in Europe, particularly owing to the refugees and displaced people produced by such conflicts.
In this way, the EU must be an area of solidarity, combining this assistance to Georgia with the aforementioned appropriate aspects.
Nuno Melo
The macro-financial assistance programme is also vital for improving the financial stability of European nations that have endured the recent global crisis and suffered from the effects of this crisis on their main commercial partners, particularly Russia in the case of Armenia. Financial imbalances are due to issues surrounding budgets and the balance of payments.
This assistance is important if Armenia is to face the crisis in a more consistent manner, and to prevent social instability, which could precipitate a mass exodus of emigrants, leading to problems within Europe.
In this way, the EU must act as an area of solidarity, combining this assistance to Armenia with the aforementioned appropriate aspects.
Nuno Melo
In the specific case of Serbia, the macro-financial assistance programme is vital for improving the country's financial stability, as, in addition to the global crisis, Serbia has also emerged from an armed conflict whose effects are still being felt.
This assistance is an important tool for financial stability in Serbia, and for consolidating the stabilisation of the situation throughout the Balkan region. Serbia and its economy play a role of paramount importance in the process of regional integration, and its participation in European integration is also essential.
In this way, the EU must act as an area of solidarity, combining this assistance to Serbia with the aforementioned appropriate aspects.
Andreas Mölzer
Over the next year, it is planned that Serbia will receive macro-financial assistance totalling up to EUR 200 million in the form of a loan. This money is intended to support the economic stabilisation of that country, finance its external balance-of-payments needs and help it meet the consequences of the global economic and financial crisis. I see the macro-financial assistance for Serbia, which will support the country's economic stabilisation programme in the current crisis, as an important tool for promoting stabilisation across the Balkan region. Serbia and its economy have a key role to play in regional integration and Serbia's participation in European integration is likewise of major importance. For these reasons, I voted in favour of Mr Ransdorf's report and thus in favour of the granting of macro-financial assistance to Serbia.
Nuno Melo
The macro-financial assistance programme is vital for improving financial stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina and for combating the detrimental effect of the global crisis on the country's economy. This aid will be reflected in an improvement in the country's economy in terms of the budget deficit and the balance of payments.
Bosnia is also situated in a sensitive region, so its economic and financial stability is especially important, as it will contribute to bringing about greater stability throughout the Balkan region.
In this way, the EU must act as an area of solidarity, combining this assistance to Bosnia with the aforementioned appropriate aspects.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon
We do not accept European loans and subsidies being subject to restrictions imposed by the IMF. We shall vote against the MFA (macro-financial assistance) being presented today to the European Parliament. You can see what kinds of conditions are involved: impossible deadlines, a lack of information ... Whichever way you look at it, this defies the democratic demands that should characterise the European Union.
Nevertheless, we still support the peoples of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Armenia and Georgia. We do not want them to suffer any more than they already do from the obsolete and dangerous neo-liberal system that the IMF is seeking to perpetuate.
Diogo Feio
I see this report on the draft Council Directive which aims to amend the common system of value added tax as a way of achieving a more simplified and harmonised system. In fact, by combining certain aspects relating to VAT on the supply of natural gas, electricity and heat or refrigeration with the tax treatment of joint undertakings established in accordance with Article 171 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the identification of certain consequences of EU enlargement, and with the conditions for exercising the right to deduct input VAT, we will be moving towards greater effectiveness in applying VAT.
Ilda Figueiredo
The Council's proposal aims to clarify certain matters relating to the import and place of taxation of gas and electricity supplies to include the amendments agreed for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU within the scope of the directive, and to clarify and emphasise the basic rule of law to deduct, which states that this right only arises if the goods and services are used by a taxable person and for the needs of his/her business.
However, the text adopted today does not correspond with certain specific features of national markets, such as the use of butane and propane gas. In Portugal, as in other European countries where citizens have low incomes and whose relatively recent inclusion in the European natural gas networks is extremely expensive, the use of butane and propane gas in households and micro and small enterprises is an unavoidable reality.
Moreover, as a rule, the people who resort to this type of energy are the most deprived, meaning that the VAT directive discriminates against this group rather than those with higher incomes.
Furthermore, the changes to the report seem to restrict the Member State's scope for action.
Ian Hudghton
in writing. - I abstained on the Bullmann report. Whilst I do believe that the Council has a duty to listen to the views of this House, the EU's only directly elected institution, I do not believe that VAT systems should be harmonised. The principle of subsidiarity dictates that taxation is a matter best left to the nations of Europe.
Luís Paulo Alves
I voted in favour of the report on the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic in relation to the storage of carbon dioxide streams in geological formations as I believe that the existence of a regulatory framework and guidelines on the storage of carbon dioxide streams in geological formations will contribute to the protection of the maritime area, both in the short term and the long term, provided the aim is to permanently hold the carbon dioxide in these formations, and provided that this will not have significant adverse effects on the marine environment, human health and other legitimate uses of Europe's maritime areas, specifically those of Portugal and, in particular, the Azores.
Edite Estrela
I voted in favour of the Rosbach report on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the approval on behalf of the European Community of the Amendments to Annex II and Annex III to the Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) in relation to the storage of carbon dioxide streams in geological formations. Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that geological capture and storage technology for carbon dioxide, which has been little tested, is applied in accordance with the strictest safety standards, as set out in the directive on this issue.
João Ferreira
The geological storage of carbon dioxide has been identified as a possible solution for mitigating the effects of an increase in the anthropogenic concentration of this gas in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, this solution raises a number of questions about its future applicability, particularly given that the development of the technology required is still in its early stages, it is expected to be expensive, and there are potential risks associated with it. It is worth following the studies that have been carried out on this subject, bearing in mind that some of the results obtained up to this point are positive in this respect.
It is, however, worth noting that under no circumstances must the pursuit of studies on this option or its possible implementation in the future compromise the necessary change of energy paradigm, which aims at a significant reduction in the current dependence on fossil fuels. On the other hand, both the environmental effects and the safety of the technologies used in storage must be thoroughly investigated. The approved resolution ensures that this will be done, and that is why we voted in favour of it.
Ian Hudghton
in writing. - I voted in favour of the Rosbach report. Carbon capture and storage can make a significant contribution to efforts aimed at tackling global warming and my own country, Scotland, will play an important role in developing the necessary technology. This amendment to the OSPAR Convention will mean that the EU and Scotland can take a lead in this area.
Bruno Gollnisch
I must admit that I learnt something new from these two reports by Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg: I learnt that those countries that chose not to participate in judicial cooperation in civil matters had, nonetheless, also lost their sovereignty.
Indeed, Denmark, which was able to negotiate an exemption, but which also sought, as a sovereign country, to conclude a treaty with the Community so as to participate in certain aspects of this cooperation, is today obliged to ask for the Commission's permission in order to conclude new international agreements of this kind with others! In other words, it has lost its right to take entirely independent decisions in one area of its external relations.
While, from an intellectual point of view, I can understand that consistency within and outside the Community is required in order to establish this cooperation, I do have more difficulty in accepting that the Commission is solely responsible for these kinds of international treaties, that it controls, even in part, a Member State's ability to conclude treaties, and even more so that European law takes precedence over all others.
We have only voted in favour of these reports because there is no reason to prevent Denmark from concluding the agreements that it wants to conclude, and there are few opportunities to do otherwise in the current circumstances.
Ian Hudghton
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report relating to recovery plan changes within the framework of the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. International fisheries organisations are essential to the management of global marine resources. I consider it unfortunate, however, that it is the EU that negotiates with our North Atlantic neighbours. Whilst the Treaty of Lisbon has now enshrined this principle, I still consider that there is scope for fisheries management to be returned to the fishing nations and maritime regions.
Andreas Mölzer
Specifically when it comes to rail freight and long-distance transport, the last few years have witnessed some change for the better. Passengers must not be left behind in this, however. Rules on compensation for delays to international rail services are not enough. We must ensure that, in the rush to globalise, regional transport is not completely marginalised, with whole regions being cut off.
Equally, we must ensure that the delusional emphasis on privatisation hitherto does not lead to UK-style massive delays and safety failings. It is important to overcome obstacles and technical difficulties in the way of cross-border rail traffic, and not only for environmental purposes. That is why I voted in favour of this report.
Miroslav Mikolášik
I welcome the decision of the Community to sign the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations because the protocol brings a long-awaited and much-needed clarification of the rules determining the applicable law, which are supplemented by the Hague Convention of 23 November on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.
The harmonisation of the rules will provide legal certainty to persons entitled to maintenance and the possibility of taking action without being subject to differing legal systems. Thanks to the special rules, it will also limit the avoidance of maintenance obligations, where entitled persons are unable to secure maintenance on the basis of the law of the country in which they normally reside. The possibility of refusing to apply a right established on the basis of the protocol is restricted only to cases where the effects would clearly be contrary to public order in the country of the court in question. I would also like to express my profound regret that the United Kingdom is not participating in the decision of the Council for the protocol to be signed by the Community.
Sabine Lösing
in writing. - On 9 November 2009, the report on the request for the defence of the immunity and privileges of Tobias Pflüger was voted and adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) in the European Parliament.
This report is based on incorrect facts.
The central point is that the report cites a judgment at first instance which has been repealed. The judgment is invalid, because the regional court in Munich http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=5tY9AA&search=dismiss" ed http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=5tY9AA&search=an" http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=5tY9AA&search=action" against Tobias Pflüger on 21 July 2009 in the second and final instance. A conviction was not made. For this reason, all reproaches are invalid.
It is politically unacceptable that this report, which contains incorrect facts, was voted in Plenary today (24 November 2009).
We have tried to get this incomplete and therefore incorrect report taken from the agenda, unfortunately without success.
This kind of proceeding by the European Parliament creates the impression of supporting the persecution of politically active persons, in this case, the Munich II Public Prosecution Service against a former Member of the European Parliament.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon
in writing. - On 9 November 2009, the report on the request for the defence of the immunity and privileges of Tobias Pflüger was voted and adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) in the European Parliament.
This report is based on incorrect facts.
The central point is that the report cites a judgment at first instance which has been repealed. The judgment is invalid because the regional court in Munich dismissed the action against Tobias Pflüger on 21 July 2009 in the second and final instance. A conviction was not made. For this reason, all reproaches are invalid.
It is politically unacceptable that this report, which contains incorrect facts, was voted in plenary today (24 November 2009).
We have tried to get this incomplete and therefore incorrect report taken off the agenda, unfortunately without success.
This kind of proceeding by the European Parliament creates the impression of supporting the persecution of politically active persons, in this case, the Munich II Public Prosecution Service against the former Member of the European Parliament, Tobias Pflüger.
Willy Meyer
in writing. - On 9 November 2009, the report on the request for the defence of the immunity and privileges of Tobias Pflüger was voted and adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) in the European Parliament. This report is based on incorrect facts. The central point is: the report cites a judgment at first instance which was repealed in the meanwhile. The judgment is invalid because the Munich regional court dismissed the action against Tobias Pflüger on 21 July 2009 in second and final instance. A conviction was not made. For this reason, all reproaches are invalid. It is politically unacceptable that this report, which contains incorrect facts, was voted in the Plenary today (24 November 2009). We have tried to get this incomplete and therefore incorrect report taken off the agenda, unfortunately without success. This kind of proceeding by the European Parliament creates the impression of supporting the persecution of political active persons, in this case, the Munich II Public Prosecution Service against the former Member of European Parliament, Tobias Pflüger.
Peter Skinner
in writing. - I consider the role of Parliament to be only effective if it can sustain the effect of legislation. In this context, the application of the rule of 'regulatory procedure with scrutiny' allows for ex ante consideration of proposals brought into law. This report nuances Parliament's role and enhances our ability to control and monitor the implementation of legislation in Member States.


Situation in Darfur (debate)
President
The next item is the Commission statement on the situation in Darfur.
Joaquín Almunia
Member of the Commission. Mr President, we are confronted with a dramatic humanitarian, security and political problem in Darfur today.
The situation on the ground is deteriorating by the day. The number of civilians affected by the conflict has risen to almost four million since 2003. Throughout 2006 we saw an increase in the number of violent deaths in Darfur. Attacks on humanitarian aid agencies also significantly increased and this has prompted some organisations to evacuate.
Continued violations of the ceasefire by both the Sudanese Government and the rebel factions deepen insecurity and instability. Most recently, on Monday, Sudanese military forces bombarded Cariari and Bahai, two villages in north Darfur close to the Chad-Sudan border.
The African Union Mission to Sudan - established in 2004 to help prevent further conflict - continues to face resource constraints. Despite its best efforts, it had some difficulty in providing effective protection to civilians or carrying out additional duties associated with the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement. Politically, the situation is complicated by splits and regrouping among the non-signatory rebel movements as well as the Government's refusal to consider reopening the deadlocked Peace Agreement.
Darfur is not a simple issue. The commitment of the European Union to alleviating such a dramatic situation has been reiterated on several occasions, most recently at the European Council last December, at the Council on 22 January and, just two days ago, through the General Affairs Council conclusions on Sudan of 12 February. We must work to ensure the protection of non-combatants as well as of humanitarian aid workers. We must seek the full implementation of the UN-AU three phase plan for Darfur, this being the most effective means at our disposal to support the African Union mission in Sudan and to protect civilians.
But our overriding objective in Darfur must be to achieve a durable peace through a political settlement agreed by all parties voluntarily and then implemented. The strategy of Khartoum to negotiate individually with each rebel leader to buy their support will not create a cohesive and lasting peace.
The Council of the EU, in its latest conclusions on Sudan, has emphasised the need for an inclusive political process and confirmed its support for the joint initiative of the African Union and UN special envoys to start negotiations between the parties as soon as possible. On several occasions and in various fora, the Commission has stressed the need for a political solution in Darfur based on the existing peace agreement and insisted that there is no military solution to the crisis. In this context, the European Commission has strongly backed the African Union in the search for a political settlement in Darfur.
The Commission has been providing continued support to the African Union in political and financial terms. With cofinancing from Belgium, the Commission stands behind any and all efforts to revive the peace agreement. The European Commission has provided one and a half billion euros specifically for the Darfur crisis, covering security, humanitarian needs and peace efforts for Darfur. The aim is to create the conditions to bring the non-signatory parties of the Darfur Peace Agreement back to the negotiating table and to start effective implementation of the Agreement.
Pending a lasting settlement, the Commission is also active in the political démarche intended to obtain the agreement of the Khartoum Government to a joint AU-UN force capable of providing effective protection of civilians. In the margins of the African Union Summit on 28 January, Commissioner Michel met with the Sudanese President, Mr al-Bashir, as well as with the UN Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-Moon. The Commissioner was also in Ethiopia and in Eritrea where the Darfur issue was raised. Just yesterday, the Darfur issue was discussed in Washington in a meeting between Commissioner Michel and the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
This Parliament is right to debate the Darfur Peace Agreement and the critical situation in Darfur. Yet we must not take the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for granted. EU Heads of Mission in Khartoum report that this peace agreement, made in 2005 with the south, is in trouble. After 20 years of civil war the comprehensive peace agreement may be the last chance for the Khartoum regime to show that the federal power-sharing form of government can work for this vast country. If the Comprehensive Peace Agreement cannot work, then nor can the Darfur Peace Agreement. It is important, I think, that the critical situation in Darfur does not divert our attention, or indeed the attention of the Sudanese regime, from the very real threat to the whole sub-region if both the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Darfur Peace Agreement are not pursued with more vigour. This is a message that the Commission will strive to communicate in the weeks ahead.
Simon Coveney
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Council released its conclusions on Sudan on Monday, so it is appropriate that Parliament also speaks out strongly this week, further highlighting the humanitarian crisis and international scandal that is Darfur. We are attempting to raise the political temperature on this issue to increase the pressure on those who can, if the will exists, make things happen on the ground to protect people.
We all know the figures and the scale of the humanitarian consequences of insufficient action by the international community. It is estimated that up to 400 000 people have been killed and more than two and a half million people displaced or made homeless in the last three years due to conflict. NGOs currently provide humanitarian relief for up to four million people. That is half of Darfur's entire population. In recent months there have been repeated attacks on humanitarian convoys and twelve aid workers have been killed in Darfur in the last six months.
So NGOs are pulling their people out of Darfur while indiscriminate attacks continue on civilians. So what can we do? The main thrust of this resolution is to call on the UN to set a clear date for deployment of the planned UN-supported peacekeeping force, or hybrid force, into Darfur, even in the absence of agreement with the Sudanese Government, in order to secure humanitarian aid corridors to an increasingly isolated population in the region.
We are calling for this in the context of the UN's responsibility to protect, based on the failure of the Sudanese Government to protect its own population from war crimes and crimes against humanity, and a failure to provide humanitarian assistance to the population. President al-Bashir continues to oppose Phase 3 of the present UN Plan which allows the AU mission to be bolstered by more than 20 000 UN peacekeeping troops.
The point is, diplomacy is failing. People are dying in huge numbers and at some point the international community is obliged to act more firmly. That is why the setting of a clear date for the deployment of troops will focus the attention on a tight timescale to find a diplomatic solution to get peacekeepers on the ground in Darfur.
Margrietus van den Berg
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Darfur has been suffering under a regime of terror for four years now. Hundreds of thousands of people there have lost their lives, two million have lost their homes, and rape, murder and pillaging are daily occurrences there. It is nearly impossible to really grasp the extent of this suffering. Meanwhile, despite all the fine agreements, human rights violations get increasingly out of hand. Over the past few months, the situation has hit an all-time low for both the people and aid workers. Despite the Peace Agreement concluded in early January, large parts of North Darfur were deliberately bombarded recently by the Sudanese air force. Even the aid workers are no longer safe from violence, aid organisations increasingly feel it. Last month, 15 UN organisations, including UNICEF, reported that they were no longer able to keep on providing aid to the people in Darfur in an adequate manner. Two weeks ago, the aid organisation Médicins du Monde was the first to withdraw, and Oxfam and CARE International are at risk of having to follow suit, even though three and a half million Darfuris rely on humanitarian aid.
The Council is not present today. How long do we intend to perpetuate this untenable situation? The UN may be speaking with force in its resolution, but it has not done much in the way of action. The peace force that was promised two months ago in Addis Ababa produced some 100 troops and very little else. The UN Security Council authorised sanctions against four major perpetrators of atrocities, but nothing happened. It is unacceptable for European Member States to be able to impose sanctions on war criminals in countries such as Belarus, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe and to fail to do so in Darfur, where the Council is neglecting its humanitarian duty.
The international community should no longer stand by helplessly while millions of innocent people are being driven away from their homes, murdered and raped. Europe should take the lead and take urgent action in order to stop the humanitarian crisis in Darfur in its tracks. The Sudanese Government will be prepared to conclude real peace agreements and adhere to them only if its own interests are affected, for the only language it understands is its own, that of the fist. In southern Sudan, an oil boycott proved effective, and I would urge Members belonging to the other political parties to apply the same tactics if necessary.
I should like to ask the Council whether it is prepared, without delay, to declare sanctions against anyone who violates the ceasefire or who attacks citizens, peace keepers or aid workers. Would it be prepared to do everything necessary to stop them getting away with it and, once and for all, to enforce and implement the sanctions agreed upon in the Security Council? Is it prepared to enforce the presence of the hybrid peace force of African Union soldiers and blue helmets?
Would it, finally, be prepared to apply economic sanctions, including the introduction of an oil embargo? We did not intervene when the genocide in Rwanda took place, and watched helplessly as the men in Srebrenica met their fate, even though the UN was set up in 1945 in order to reinforce our promise of 'never again'. We should not leave the powerless to their fate. I hope that Europe wants to make a difference. I am, above all, addressing the Council, which is absent, and the Commissioner, whom I would like to urge to take action.
Thierry Cornillet
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, I speak on behalf of my colleague, Mr Morillon.
I must begin by highlighting the entirely surreal nature of our meeting this evening. There are around ten of us Members present. Commissioner, thank you for being here. I know the reasons for the absence of Mr Michel, whom you are representing. However, the most notable absentee is the Council, and in the meantime, I am afraid to say, people continue to die in Darfur. I would remind you, as a numbers man, Mr Almunia, that fourteen or fifteen people die every hour in Darfur.
It was therefore high time we worried about a situation that no one believes is simple. Yet, must we continue making fools of ourselves? This resolution will be the fifth that we have adopted over many months on Darfur: we can see the extent to which they undermine the officials, not least the Sudanese officials received this evening in Paris.
I believe that we could actually finally assume our responsibilities. I must alert you, Commissioner, to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this resolution. As my fellow Member, Mr Coveney, pointed out, paragraph 2 emphasises the need for a precise date to be set by the UN. However, paragraph 3, Commissioner, is an appeal launched at the European Union, with the aim of having it assume its responsibilities. Its assuming its responsibilities will surely mean something in the future. If not, one may wonder about the purpose of the European Union and of the values that we seek to uphold, faced with what is essentially an endless emergency humanitarian situation, something that no one denies.
My colleagues have nominated me as permanent rapporteur for humanitarian action. But what should I report on? The systematic withdrawal of all the NGOs, which are no longer allowed to work, the fourteen people who have been killed and the deaths day in, day out of people who have been abandoned and who, in addition to having been displaced, have lost all hope.
Commissioner, please speak with the Commission on our behalf; we will take care of the Council, politically, because, if we listened to them, we would have to wait a month before discussing this issue. This message needs to be passed on: one day, the law, not to mention the duty to interfere, will be required, when it is clear that men and women are being abused to this extent.
Marie-Hélène Aubert
Mr President, I too should like to highlight the discrepancy between the seriousness of the issue being dealt with and this practically deserted Chamber, and that is without mentioning the absence of the Council; while the Commission is at least represented, our action in relation to this matter is certainly not, in any event, equal to the challenges.
As I was saying, the Council is absent, but when one reads its conclusions of 12 February, that is to say, those written exactly two days ago, its absence does not change a great deal anyway. I shall read and quote what is written in these conclusions:
'The Council remains gravely concerned about the security situation in Darfur' - to say the least - 'and condemns continued ceasefire violations by all parties.'
(FR) That is the kind of particularly forceful sentence that the Council is capable of producing after months and months of resolutions, decisions and diplomatic meetings, when the situation is more disastrous now than it ever has been. We therefore clearly believe that a change of level is required and, indeed, that more pressure must be exerted with regard to this unacceptable situation.
What about the punishments that were decided on for the Sudanese leaders, and for all these war criminals? What is the European Union doing with regard to these punishments? It seems to me, in any case, that the European Union has a number of options available to it to freeze financial resources so as to prevent all these people from moving freely about our territory. Ways of exerting pressure do exist.
What are we doing with regard to United Nations Resolution 1706, which has the backing of the European Union? What initiatives have been taken by the European Commission and the Council to put pressure on all those responsible for this situation? What credibility do we have today to issue a multitude of texts that, at least on the part of the Council, and even of the Commission, merely restate our grave concerns regarding this situation?
Only a very short time ago, the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, visited several African countries and, more specifically, Sudan. What is the Union's position faced with this situation, with the new and emerging role of China's leaders? Faced, too, with the importance of access to raw materials, and to oil in particular?
Thus, when one sees the inertia, the powerlessness, of the European institutions on this issue, what conclusions must be drawn? Does this mean that, if priority is to be given to accessing raw materials or oil, which in reality is gradually dwindling, and if it is to be given to the large markets represented by countries such as China, the values of human rights and the duty that we actually have to protect civilian populations need to be put on the back burner? Is that what this means?
I believe that it would be absolutely tragic for the European Union to come to that. The fact is that these issues are being raised on a daily basis, and we constantly find ourselves incapable and powerless in the face of this tragic situation. It is therefore high time a formal sitting bringing together the Council, the Commission and Parliament was organised - and organised very soon - on this issue, in Brussels or Strasbourg, so that the necessary decisions can finally be taken.
Bastiaan Belder
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I can identify with this joint resolution about the international blot - and I should like to underline 'this international blot' - being Darfur, despite a few of the comments that have been made. I should like to single out a few elements if I may.
In recital C, it is stated that the conflict in Darfur is increasingly destabilising the Central African region. Less than a week ago, an analysis was published in my home country, the Netherlands, about this very disruptive situation under the telling heading 'The black hole'. Indeed, there is a black hole at the heart of Africa, rudderless, violent and with a stream of refugees who are headed in all directions. One immediate risk is that the conflict in Darfur, which is racist in that nomads of Arab origin are driving out and killing African farmers, will move to Chad and take the notorious and murderous Janjaweed militia with it. Various paragraphs in the joint resolution urge the United Nations finally to face up to its responsibilities in Darfur. Whilst I can fully endorse this parliamentary cry for help, I have to confess at the same time that I am extremely sceptical as to whether this distress signal will actually be heard in the UN Headquarters in New York.
Earlier this week, Jan Pronk, the former UN envoy to Sudan, gave a frank and honest interview to the Sudan Tribune. He asserted, verbatim, that he accused New York of leaving its own mission in the lurch and, instead, of pandering to the elite in power in Khartoum. It is awful - he said - if you send thousands of people to Sudan and then leave them to their own devices.
What we should, in any case, be doing is to ensure that Mr Pronk's indictment does not fall on deaf ears, but reaches our governments, the European Council and the UN Security Council, and results in action.
I also deem as completely appropriate the appeal of this House to the People's Republic of China to put its not insignificant political and economic weight into the balance in order to try to get the Sudanese leadership to actually enforce existing peace agreements on Khartoum. Only a constructive international stance such as this one is in keeping with Peking's adage of harmonious external relations. Moreover, that is also what we can expect of a strategic partner as a responsible member of the UN Security Council. After all, as rapporteur for EU/China relations, I constantly reminded my esteemed Chinese interlocutors of this elementary constructive international role.
Finally, I would like to back the only amendment to the joint resolution - that tabled by Mrs Gomes - and back it all the way. Sanctions against this shameless Sudanese regime should definitely involve an oil embargo, as some sort of acid test to check whether the United Nations, given the long suffering of the people in Darfur, still abides by its own political principles.
Michael Gahler
(DE) Mr President, the situation in Darfur remains shocking. The response of the international community has been wholly inadequate. The previous speakers have described the situation adequately: there is no improvement in sight for the people there.
Some necessary resolutions have been passed, such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1706, but their implementation ultimately fails on account of the Government in Khartoum, most of whose leaders are no doubt listed in the files of the International Criminal Court - which launched an investigation into crimes in Darfur as early as June 2005.
We have a situation where the United Nations has to take action, in accordance with its responsibility for protecting human beings, since the Government of Sudan has not been protecting the people of Darfur against war crimes and crimes against humanity, nor has it lent them any assistance.
For this reason, Parliament calls on the United Nations to set a date for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of the United Nations, even if this has not been approved by the Khartoum regime. We call on the Council and the Commission to do everything in their power to put an end to this sustained humanitarian disaster.
Concrete action can be launched for the short term without great expense. The EU should impose personal sanctions on representatives of the regime unilaterally rather than waiting for the rest of the international community. I have always been in favour of this as a means of preventing family members going on shopping trips to Europe.
The Darfur regime has thus far been ignoring the no-fly zone imposed by Security Council Resolution 1591, and is continuing to bomb villages in Darfur. We call for the use of capabilities available in the region to enforce this no-fly zone. After all, we know which Member States have aircraft based in the region - not to say the immediate vicinity. Why are these not being used in the services of the UN? The EU must agree to this, at least.
We should also give those in power in Khartoum to understand that they should not rely overly on forces outside Africa. The Sudanese Government is skating on very thin ice, and should not exhaust African solidarity. Two warning shots have already been fired. The ACP Summit in Khartoum was the summit attended by the fewest Heads of State or Government - a clear sign of displeasure. The fact that the AU Summit opted for President Kufuor instead of the Sudanese President was a further clear indication of disapproval.
Glenys Kinnock
Mr President, as others have said, as General al-Bashir continues to prevaricate on the deployment of an AU-UN hybrid force in Darfur, we see the humanitarian crisis getting worse. We see the number of internally displaced people increasing. The ceasefire has collapsed.
The international community has and is continuing to fail to fulfil its responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Darfur. This means that the European Union must act urgently to impose its own targeted and phased smart sanctions. We do not have to wait for the UN Security Council to agree on essential new measures - as others have suggested - on an arms embargo covering all of Sudan, on asset-freezing of the wealthy people of Sudan, on travel bans and on consideration of an oil embargo.
Clearly, revenue flows to the south would need to be protected if we impose an oil embargo, and consideration would perhaps need to be given to compensating the south Sudanese for lost oil revenue. But the least we can do is to put a bar on investments, on technical equipment and on expertise. I also believe that there should be serious consideration of sports sanctions against Sudan, especially consideration of excluding Sudan from the 2010 World Cup. This means that Europe has to put pressure on FIFA.
The EU position, frankly, is weak and untenable. There is too much emphasis on carrots and not enough on sticks. The German Presidency must take a lead and insist on a unified position from Member States. Commissioner, you have described the position, and in the Council we hear the fine words, but nothing happens.
The question is: how does Europe put pressure on Khartoum? There must be an urgent and detailed investigation of the personal finances of wealthy individuals in Sudan. We have to prepare the arguments against those who claim that this would push Sudan closer towards Chinese business interests. The truth is, frankly, that nothing is currently influencing Sudan. It is virtually impossible to influence them, and so, if we remain supine, then we maintain the position where they can be as brutal as they like and Europe will continue to do nothing. Millions of people in Darfur are paying for European broken promises and totally worthless commitments. Khartoum knows that Europe is all bark and no bite and that is why today we are calling for new, strong, economic, legal and military measures.
Public condemnation is not enough. We want solutions which reflect the tragedy. Europe is shamefully weak and I have to say finally that if Darfur was, for example, Lebanon, then real sanctions would be getting a lot more discussion time in the Council, and President Barroso in the Commission and you, Commissioner, would put pressure on the Council to do more.
Fiona Hall
Mr President, the humanitarian crisis in Darfur is on a scale which is difficult to comprehend. Two and a half million people have had to flee their homes. That is the equivalent of the entire population of north-east England. The death toll among these displaced people is high and it would be higher by far if it were not for the humanitarian efforts on the ground. But even humanitarian workers cannot operate on a battlefield and unless there is a lessening of hostilities in Darfur it can be expected that more of them will be evacuated. The entire fragile, overstretched humanitarian effort in Darfur could very easily collapse, precipitating hunger and disease in the camps and a rocketing death toll. That is why the stabilising influence of an international peace force is so urgently required. It is also necessary in order to provide calmer conditions in which a political process can get under way, involving all parties and including local low-key intercommunity dialogue as well as high-level, high-profile political negotiation.
Ana Maria Gomes
(PT) It is certainly significant and worrying that the German Presidency is not here today to represent the Council. This says a great deal about levels of genuine interest and commitment in the new relationship with Africa and in working for development in Africa. Three years ago, I was in Darfur with other MEPs who have spoken or who are about to speak. Since then, the situation has worsened, as Mr Almunia said.
The Al-Bashir Government is toying with the international community, with the Security Council, with the European Union and with the African Union, and the EU makes fine statements and does nothing. The time has come for the EU to take action and to exercise its responsibility to protect people. The time has come to impose a no-fly-zone from Chad. The EU can do this, alongside African countries with which it enjoys good relations, and can have an effect on the ground. The time has come, among other things, to impose smart, phased sanctions, travel bans, visa restrictions, and the freezing of assets in banks and elsewhere, and to stop treating Omar Al-Bashir and the members of his government as responsible, respectable leaders. The time has come to impose an effective arms embargo. The time has come to impose other kinds of trade embargo and in particular an oil embargo and on this issue, Mr President, the EU must speak frankly with China, because China as we know is very much responsible for the Al-Bashir Government's attitude. It is a pity that Europe waits for the United States, as Mr Almunia suggested, albeit in a roundabout way, because the EU should take action independently on this issue.
Let us take a look at what is happening not just in Darfur but throughout Sudan and the Horn of Africa. The EU cannot be dependent on the worldview and disastrous policies of the US in respect of the Horn of Africa, as we have seen in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia. The time has come for the EU to take action and I align myself with those MEPs who are calling on the Council and the President of the Commission to ensure that the EU does not wait any longer, and exerts the influence it actually has in Khartoum and in Africa to change the situation and to protect the people dying in Darfur. Otherwise, three years hence I along with other MEPs will be joining Mr Almunia or some other Commissioner in bemoaning the fact that the situation has become worse and worse.
Joaquín Almunia
Member of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission shares the main concerns that you have expressed in this debate tonight. We find the initiative of this debate particularly useful, given the situation and in particular given the latest developments in the region.
In our view, even with this extremely difficult situation, a negotiated way out of the crisis in Darfur is the most desirable alternative and the option most likely to be successful. That being said, the Council already stated last Monday that it is ready to consider further measures, notably in the UN framework.
A lasting peace is Darfur can only be political and will require all parties to support the Darfur Peace Agreement and renounce the military option. The Commission remains strongly committed to alleviating the plight of the three million civilian people affected by this terrible crisis. As you all know, the Commission, and in particular my colleague Louis Michel - who cannot be here today because he is in Washington, discussing, among other things, this particular issue - is following the situation very closely and the Commission will not hesitate to call on all parties to respect human rights and international law as well as to remove all obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian aid.
President
To wind up the debate, I have received six motions for resolutionspursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Filip Kaczmarek
in writing. - (PL) We are proud that the very fact that, as Europeans, we are compelled to condemn manifest evil in whichever part of our world it may affect human beings. What is happening in Darfur is a manifest evil. Accordingly, we are bound to express our opposition to those who perpetrate such evils. Is it enough for us to simply express views that stem from a moral imperative and then rest in the knowledge of a job well done? Obviously not. We cannot rest as long as people continue to suffer. We can only rest when we have put a stop to the evil. Therefore, we are not entitled to rest simply because we have right on our side, but only when effective action has been taken.
We shall only be able to rest and be content when our words and actions have put a stop to the activities of those who kill, supply weapons and ideology, as well as those who permit, incite and inflict cruelty. We will only be able to walk with our heads held high when our vision of a moral order becomes reality. A person who did not commit a sin simply because he or she was not tempted to do so cannot be accused of sinning. By the same token, one cannot praise a person who could have taken action to stem evil, but who was content to simply point it out. We do not lack information about Darfur. We do not lack experience or an ethical and political assessment of events. What we are lack is effectiveness and, therefore, that is what we should focus on.
Patrick Gaubert
in writing. - (FR) Ever since the hostilities were launched in February 2003, Darfur, one of the poorest regions in Sudan, has been the scene of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. There have been four years of conflict and suffering for the people of Darfur, and four resolutions by our Parliament to show our indignation, but the situation remains extremely worrying.
Today, our Parliament is reiterating its concerns within the context of a joint resolution on Darfur and is urging the United Nations, the Member States, the Council and the Commission to assume their responsibilities and to clearly set a date for the deployment of a peacekeeping force, under UN control, with the aim of immediately making the humanitarian corridors more secure and of thus easing the immense distress faced by the people of Darfur.
I welcome this new initiative, but faced with the urgency of the situation, Europe can no longer just reiterate old requests. Our responsibility and our credibility require us to provide a satisfactory solution to the suffering of millions of human victims whom Europe can no longer merely observe, and to adopt a resolution that finally matches our indignation.
Glyn Ford
Darfur has been a running sore for far too long. A situation partly driven by climate change - what does that bode for the future - whereby desertification has driven pastoralists into direct conflict with settled farming communities and then exploited by a heartless Government in Sudan has gone on for far too long.
Hundreds of thousands are living in misery and threatened with worse. I have been critical of China's reluctance to support UN action, it was claimed because of its oil interests in southern Sudan. But now President Hu Jintao's direct intervention appears to have persuaded Sudan's President to agree a UN peacekeeping operation manned by troops from AU countries.
Whether Sudan's Government can be trusted is not clear. But now, if China is betrayed, Sudan will no longer be able to rely on their reluctance to act in the UN Secretary Council. This may be good news for refugees in Darfur and neighbouring countries.