4. Framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


Announcement by the President
I feel obliged to express my concern, and that of the whole of Parliament, I imagine, at the Conference on the Holocaust held in Teheran on 11 and 12 December.
(Loud applause)
On behalf of the plenary of the European Parliament, I would urge the Iranian Government to do what it must to prevent any act of anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, discrimination or denial of historical events and their victims.
(Applause)


Voting time
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take a few seconds to express my disapproval of the Council's decision to reject the report by Mrs Estrela on maternity leave.
Today, I am acting as the spokesperson for millions of European mothers and fathers who, like me, are very disappointed by the Council's decision. It is an admission of a lack of values, which I do not identify with and which I condemn with every fibre of my being. I wonder what kind of Europe we are heading towards. Rejecting this proposal is a decision that hurts not just the families of today but, above all, the families of tomorrow.
We shall now proceed to the vote.
(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)


18. Protection of the euro against counterfeiting (


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


Action Plan on Urban Mobility (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Savary, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on an action plan on urban mobility.
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you. It is a somewhat unprecedented exercise in style that the European Parliament is carrying out on this report since, I would remind you, the issue of urban mobility was first raised by the transport commissioner, Jacques Barrot, over two years ago now, and it resulted in a Green Paper by the European Commission, which submitted its conclusions to us in spring 2007. The latter were addressed in a report - an own-initiative report - by our Parliament, drafted by my fellow Member, Mr Rack, who is here in the Chamber.
The European institutional system stipulates that a Green Paper must be followed by a White Paper, and, in the case in point, it was European Commission proposals for action plans on urban mobility that were on the table.
I must thank Mr Tajani, who is here, for advising me in December that it would not be politically possible for the European Commission to submit a proposal there and then. It is understandable: for reasons of their own, a number of States have reservations about this now that the European elections are approaching, but Parliament sought to take up the gauntlet.
I should also like to pay tribute to my fellow Members present here today, from all the political groups - especially the coordinators - and to the Committee on Regional Development, for having supported my proposal, which was to build on the advantage that we had and to say that, since the Commission could no longer take the initiative, we should do.
What we are going to propose is somewhat unprecedented. I do not know whether a precedent has been set, here in this House. We are going to propose to the Commission the action plan that it should have proposed to us.
Naturally, no legal openings are to be expected from an own-initiative report such as this. By proposing a very practical action plan, with extremely precise proposals, Parliament, not being the executive, and not being the government of the European Union - that is the Commission's role - can hope for nothing other than to be heard.
I must say in passing that, over the last few months, we have obtained the overwhelming support of all the organisations that take an interest in these matters. They include, in particular - I should like to make the point here for the benefit of the few remaining Members who have some reservations about this initiative - local authorities and all the organisations that represent local authorities, including in countries which, today, plead subsidiarity as a way of explaining to us that this action plan is out of the question.
I therefore believe that local authorities have recognised that urban mobility is likely to be one of the major challenges of the 21st century. Why? Because, today, 60% of Europeans live in the urban community. In 2020, this figure will rise to 80%, and we, the European Union, have a legal basis that makes us jointly responsible, with the Member States and local authorities, for transport policy.
Would we, as Europeans, give up on having the slightest idea or the slightest initiative in areas in which transport will present the most complicated and, no doubt, the most fundamental problems in the years to come? We think not, and that is why the European Parliament did not want us to keep quiet, did not want us to keep quiet on urban mobility. Rather, in some ways it wanted us to use this initiative to call on the Commission to take up this matter again as a priority for the next mandate.
I should like to thank all of the coordinators, since we have worked in an unprecedented manner, we have worked very much upstream, and the report that has been submitted has achieved very broad support within the Committee on Transport and Tourism.
I should like to say that this is a report that is based on the principle of subsidiarity. It is out of the question - yes, I have gone on for too long, but I am sure you will forgive your rapporteur, Mr President - for Europe to think about taking any urban transport-related decisions whatsoever on behalf of local authorities.
I myself am a local elected representative, and I am very committed to the freedom of administration of local authorities, as the campaigns that I have led in this House with, in particular, Mr Piecyk, my colleague from the Committee on Transport and Tourism, have shown. What I do believe, however, is that Europe can incentivise, can improve the exchange of information and best practices, and that is the essence of our proposals, which will be outlined shortly.
Mr President, first of all I should like to thank Mr Savary for his work. I should like to thank him for the commitment he has shown to promoting a European policy on transport in major cities, in cities. This is not a secondary issue: if we do indeed want to rise to the challenge of transport in Europe, we have to work in the field of urban transport.
That is why I should like firstly to thank Mr Savary. I repeat: thanks to him, we have made progress in the field of urban transport, and today's report, which will be voted on tomorrow, is a very important message; it is a message that I must listen to, and I hope to be able to give Mr Savary positive feedback on his commitment during the next term of office. I am grateful to him once again for the work he has done on the issue of urban transport.
I shall now continue in my mother tongue.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, urban transport clearly forms an integral part of the European Union transport system since the whole system often begins and ends in large urban areas, and crosses plenty of them along the way. For this reason, it is important not only to consider urban mobility from the point of view of city life, but also from the perspective of transport of all kinds, including long-distance transport.
Combating climate change, facilitating trade, guaranteeing energy supplies, responding to citizen's mobility needs, reducing problems associated with congestion and tackling demographic change are all issues of fundamental importance for European policy, and mobility in urban areas is intimately linked to all of these challenges.
It was for precisely this reason that the Commission presented its Green Paper on Urban Mobility in September 2007, and the consultation that followed the adoption of the Green Paper has demonstrated that there is broad agreement on the fact that the European Union has a role to play in this area. Your resolution on the Green Paper on Urban Mobility, drafted under Mr Rack's leadership and adopted on 9 July 2008, upholds this conclusion.
The aim of the Paper was to pave the way for an action plan on urban mobility; Parliament's decision to go ahead with its own action plan before any Commission proposal was made sends a strong political signal; that is why I emphasised the significance of Mr Savary's work as rapporteur, as it shows how much importance Parliament attaches to a job we absolutely cannot afford to neglect.
As you are well aware, I am committed to the issue of urban mobility and to the swift adoption of a well-drafted action plan. I would like to reiterate that this is planned for in the Commission's programme of work for 2009 and I hope that it will be adopted as soon as possible. Mr Savary put it very well in his speech; there is some resistance within the European institutions as some people feel that an action plan of this kind would violate the principle of subsidiarity. I do not think there is any question of this, especially if we look at the Latin root of the word subsidiarity, which is subsidium, meaning 'help': it is our job as European institutions to help local institutions work more successfully. Helping someone does not mean replacing them, it means contributing towards a better solution to problems!
Without going into detail on the proposal, I can confirm that our action plan will be based on activities that we have been driving for some time, and will integrate them into a coherent context, seeking to present that political vision that is still lacking in European action on urban mobility. In this way, the political framework should be outlined for other future intervention in fields in which action at Community level is deemed useful, or indeed essential.
Your report will certainly make an important contribution to our internal discussions and I can assure you that we will be able to consider many of the proposals it contains. Of course, there are aspects and details that require further clarification or debate. We will examine your suggestions very carefully, I can assure you, together with the recommendation from the Committee of the Regions, with whom you consulted.
Today's vote will not be the end of our dialogue on this. As the Commission's work proceeds, I will make sure I stay in contact with Mr Savary and the other Members who have followed the transport sector closely, so that the plan the Commission adopts will be in keeping with what Parliament is adopting and will represent genuine quality. Finally - let me say again - our plan will not show that the Commission is replacing local bodies, but simply that the Commission wants to help local bodies to improve their work by sharing information and best practices that will enable citizens to live better and move around more easily within cities, outside cities and while crossing cities. I therefore thank the European Parliament for the work it has done and the vote it is to hold on this plan.
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Savary, ladies and gentlemen, we are here in a parliamentary assembly that is made for voting on texts, Commissioner, and we are above all in a parliamentary assembly so that texts are implemented.
We note today that, after the excellent work carried out by your predecessor with regard to the Green Paper and to the 400-odd contributions that have followed it, work has barely moved on, to the extent that, as you yourself repeated just now, it was interesting that the European Parliament should have expressed an opinion.
Indeed, nature abhors a vacuum, so when the European Commission does not do its job, it is Parliament that has to do it, and, in that respect, I must say - and you have said it too, Commissioner - that the work done by Mr Savary is very interesting since, in fact, he has provided you with all the material needed to draft the action plan.
I do not mean that a role reversal is taking place between the Commission and Parliament, but we should note that, while the Treaty of Lisbon has yet to be adopted, Parliament is in fact seizing a little more power.
This work by Mr Savary is excellent because it takes account once again of a number of proposals by the Committee on Regional Development.
While respecting the principle of subsidiarity, of course, we expect you to present us with a guide. The latter will be useful. Its aim will not be to constrain local authorities, but rather to help them. We expect you to present us with indicators - again, not as a constraint, but as a support. Above all we also expect you to present us with the travel plan-related elements. In certain countries, these exist; in certain countries, they are even mandatory, they are absolutely vital.
I should like to give an example. At the Urban Housing Intergroup, which I have the honour of chairing, we have highlighted urban growth over the last few years: in 10 years, urban growth has covered three times the surface of Luxembourg. So, how is that linked to our debate this evening? It has a very direct link since city-based users travel exactly 20% more each day due to urban growth, and more than 70% use their own cars.
All of this is a means of saying that, when the Committee on Regional Development asks you to observe the condition not only of the integrated approach but also of the travel plans, it is establishing a general principle that we very much hope you will take into account in your action plan.
This issue has obviously already been raised within our Urban Housing Intergroup, and we would like to express our gratitude to you in advance for taking account of the integrated approach here too.
You have not answered our questions today, Commissioner. You have made what is, in a way, a half-hearted commitment; you have been quite firm on the principle, but you have not provided us with any guarantees.
The situation is in fact serious. Why? 400 million Europeans live in cities, and those 400 million Europeans are affected by living conditions such as this that cause them to waste time every day in traffic jams. We know that these traffic jams cost us 1% of GDP. At the same time as we are talking about a recovery plan - an economic recovery plan - we are letting billions of euro go to waste.
Swifter action is required, Commissioner, for these action plans on urban mobility are a crucial element of the recovery plan, but they are also crucial in terms of the climate-change challenge since, as you pointed out, 40% of pollution is found in cities. I should not like to ignore the safety aspect, either, since two out of three road accidents occur in cities. When we know that one death costs nearly EUR 1 million, and one case of serious injuries more than EUR 1 million, you see the economic cost and the human cost that this challenge of urban mobility represents each year.
Thus, for all of these practical reasons, on the eve of the European elections, we are asking you, Commissioner, if possible during the conclusion of this evening's debate, to go further in your proposals and in your promises, not by making general promises, but by committing to an action plan - your action plan - so that our fellow citizens will be more inclined to vote on 7 June.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I join the rapporteur, Gilles Savary, in expressing my regret that the Commission did not go through with its original plan for an integrated action plan.
There are many good reasons why everyone involved, from local authorities through to the European Union, is trying to improve urban transport conditions. We know that most people in Europe live in towns and that current transport conditions are anything but optimal. That is why there is agreement in principle to make integrated proposals at Parliament's initiative on the plan and on Mr Savary's report. I thank him for his commitment and for his specific proposals.
At the same time, however, I should like to make it abundantly clear that what many fear or believe they should fear will not happen. No one wants to take the right to configure traffic conditions away from the municipalities or the local or regional authorities. We merely want to help from the European side to ensure that action is taken on the basis of reasonable common rules where a municipality, a town or a regional entity considers it reasonable. The principle of subsidiarity is not in danger. What we want to do here will help to protect that principle.
That is why we shall continue, in the interests of the citizens, to try and ensure that, when a citizen drives another ten or twenty kilometres in Europe, he does not stumble upon a traffic-calming zone which he believes to be the same as in his home district, only to find that totally different rules apply.
No one wants to impose some sort of congestion charge or other rules on communities, but if they are used, then they should be used within a framework which citizens recognise. We have been in agreement on the sense in taking a common approach to traffic signs for over 100 years. This should also apply in future to this issue.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) I should like to start by thanking rapporteur Gilles Savary, and all those who have contributed to the end result, for the work they have done, and the rapporteur, in particular, for persevering, despite the fact that the Commission has indicated its intention to abandon the plan of action, at least for the time being, which we have been calling for for so long.
I should like to ask the Commission to adopt the recommendations which we will be voting on tomorrow and to swing into action at the earliest opportunity. Even though there is a small minority in Parliament, and evidently also some people in the Commission and the Member States, who believe that we should steer clear from anything that is related to towns, it is abundantly clear that Europe offers added value when it comes to addressing problems that are considerable and largely shared.
The report contains a number of interesting proposals. An obvious one is the collection of information, of comparable data which will help map out problems. Others include the exchange and promotion of sound ideas, directing technological innovation, ensuring that systems are interoperable, encouraging towns to compile mobility plans and taking steps to arrive at sustainable mobility. These and other examples clearly concern matters that should be organised at European level in a bid to make our towns more liveable, more easily accessible and more sustainable. I therefore count on the Commission to take this over and address this in the interests of our residents.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too thank the rapporteur.
In the context of climate change, urban transport plays a central role, because it is responsible for 70% of all harmful emissions. Only if we change our transport policy in the EU will we be able to achieve our own climate protection targets. The greatest potential is in towns, where 90% of all car journeys are less than 6 km long and which therefore offer an ideal opportunity to take a bus or train or go by bicycle or on foot.
We are delighted that the majority is in favour of only giving EU money to towns with over 100 000 inhabitants which can also submit a sustainable mobility plan. We are sorry that our proposal to introduce a general speed limit of 30 km/h, with the facility for towns to set higher speeds on certain roads in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, did not achieve a majority. This would not only be good for the climate; it would also reduce the number of road traffic accidents. Every year 40 000 people die on the roads of Europe; that is 40 000 too many.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) I should like to start by thanking Mr Savary for our good cooperation. He has drafted a sound report in close cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs.
The report is clear about the fact that urban mobility is a part of the transport sector where many challenges and opportunities lie. Challenges in the field of European climate objectives, congestion control, traffic safety and user-friendliness, and opportunities with regard to sustainable economic development, and, closely related to this, the growth of inland shipping.
Since the report is excellent and is right to give due consideration to the principle of subsidiarity, I should like, briefly, to address the link between urban mobility and inland shipping. Sustainable economic development in Europe, not least in the area of transport and in the urban areas, will largely depend on the use of inland shipping. Many European cities have inland waterways and, consequently, the innate capacity to meet growing demand in transport in a sustainable manner. After all, the increase in inland shipping requires no major infrastructural investments, does not contribute to congestion in European cities and does not increase the environmental and climate problems in European cities, provided that it uses clean engines and clean fuel. If the inland shipping capacity is already present in European cities, this should be utilised and promoted.
The future of urban mobility is therefore closely connected to the future of inland shipping. I would therefore ask the European Commission to keep a close eye on the interests of inland shipping when it drafts new legislation on urban mobility.
(DE) Mr President, we have been debating urban transport in the EU for a very long time. Why exactly? We are not even competent for it. Competence was originally devised because about 80% of the population live in towns and, due to climate change, we now want to take this on.
Fortunately, thanks to our protests, we were able to reduce these ambitions on the part of the European Commission to an action plan on urban transport. My thanks to Commissioner Tajani for his insight. Subsidere means to support rather than to prescribe, but of course, as an Italian, he knows that better than I, as a German with A-level Latin.
What is important to me, first and foremost, is that our report, Parliament's report should highlight strict compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Legislative measures at European level are inadmissible for urban traffic. Supportive measures are what we are here for. Brainstorming and encouraging the exchange of best practices make sense. We do not all need to reinvent the bicycle. Our towns need bespoke solutions, but they can only be worked out by local players, because only they know what is needed.
Municipalities need to take account of very diverse situations and they therefore need sufficient room for manoeuvre, especially if they are to keep their high streets alive. They are important to the attractiveness of a town. It is therefore important not to exclude private cars and to focus more on logistics in the town. I should therefore like to see more support for research into inner-city retail logistics. That would take some of the strain off a city.
It is also important to take account of demographic change. Our society is constantly ageing. Mobility requirements and residential requirements are changing. If we want to reduce traffic, people need to be able to obtain their everyday requirements close to home, and that is also a challenge to the retail trade. Anything else would simply promote the countryside.
We do not need an urban mobility observatory. It would cost a great deal of money and generate a great deal of paper, which would simply be filed away in Brussels.
(EL) Mr President, this report on urban mobility forms an important part of viable mobility in Europe and an integral part of the strategy for achieving sustainable growth and the Lisbon objectives.
The challenge is for innovative actions to be adopted and legislative measures to be taken that will significantly improve the quality of life of citizens in cities. It is a fact that the daily lives of European citizens have become considerably more difficult as a result of stress from travelling, congestion, pollution, noise and the deterioration in the environment. A balance therefore needs to be struck between the ambition, on the one hand, to develop the common transport policy as a right to mobility and as an important part of economic growth and, on the other hand, an integrated approach that will improve traffic congestion and make a drastic contribution towards combating climate change.
In brief, that will promote a more humane life. We need to develop combined means of transport as quickly as possible and give citizens information on all urban transport networks, so that they are in a position to choose.
I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his very good and substantial report and to ask the European Commission not to waste any time or effort in preparing the action plan.
(PL) Mr President, I congratulate Mr Savary on his treatment of the subject. Transport is a fundamental problem in urban areas. These issues, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, are governed by domestic, and especially local, legislation. However, the importance of this problem should be recognised, and specific help and coordination should be arranged at the European level. This concerns both the promotion of good experiences and the propagation of innovative, technical and organisational solutions.
Special support is needed for intelligent transport systems in urban areas, which allow for effective traffic management as well as safety. Combining the potential of transport, information technology and telecommunications is useful here. Also needed are modal solutions, which use various means of mass transport and reduce congestion in city centres. I consider it essential to change urban planning models so that urban transport will be friendly to people and the environment. I also support the concept of creating a special financial instrument for urban mobility in the next financial perspective.
Let us remember what the rapporteur has emphasised, that almost 80% of the inhabitants of the EU live in urban areas. They lose a lot of time because of the bad organisation of transport. Let us not waste that time.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in response to this I can emphasise once again that I am committed to presenting the action plan in 2009.
I am aware of the sense of urgency felt by the majority of Members, but - as Mr El Khadraoui pointed out - there are legal objections in several European institutions, not just the Commission, and we must overcome these by convincing those who have doubts that an action plan of this kind, I repeat, will not breach the principle of subsidiarity. I will say it again, having studied Latin for many years, I am very familiar with the meaning of the word, which is positive; it means 'to help'.
After the debate we have had today and having read Mr Savary's text, we want to carry on down this route. For my part, I have no hesitations, but in order to reach our goal we need to persuade many people, and I think the right way to do this is with strong political, technical but also legal arguments. The text drawn up by Parliament will certainly be of great assistance in seeking to overcome the objections that I am sure can be overcome in the next few months. The Commission will thus give citizens an action plan, which will definitely take full account of the work you have done in recent weeks and months.
That is why I would like to thank you again, reaffirming my commitment and my desire to press ahead in the direction taken by my predecessor and also chosen by the European Parliament, while wishing to ensure that the decision is supported by as many people as possible so that the plan will be more effective. Choosing to adopt the plan perhaps a few weeks earlier, but without the full support of all parties, may not be the most helpful way to achieve the goals we all believe in.
Nonetheless, I think that after this debate and after Parliament's decision we will have made some significant progress, and therefore the requests made by the majority of Members - because even during the course of the debate there have been different undertones concerning the action plan - can, I think, be brought to a satisfactory conclusion in the coming months.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should obviously like straight away to reassure Mrs Sommer during this discussion. There have been many laws here that have affected local authorities: on the pitting of the Stadtwerke, or municipal utilities, against one another, for example; on public service obligations in the transport sector; and on the directives on public contracts.
Well, this is not what this is about. This is much more to do with subsidiarity. It is not a question of deciding here that a local council, a municipality or an urban area should become a '30 zone' or should give priority to rail travel. I have made sure that we do not revert to this type of debate.
The question I asked myself was: 'What can the European Union's added value be?' The answer is, firstly, its desire to act. The European Union cannot leave the urban question to one side the very same month - December 2008 - that it sets itself, thanks to Mrs Merkel and to Mr Sarkozy, a particularly ambitious climate-change plan.
How can we embark on a 'three times twenty' climate-change plan and say 'I am not interested in the urban environment', when the latter has the biggest influence on climate change?
This is a question of political consistency - European political consistency - since we had agreed, and the governments had too, to embark on the climate-change plan. There is a legitimate need to focus on the urban environment, and we cannot escape it, either in the area of transport or in other areas.
Yes, we must ensure that local councils take sovereign decisions; they are closer to us. However, what we can do is to ensure that they meet with one another, that they exchange best practices, and information.
We can ensure that they are encouraged to implement urban development plans, which is something that they have not all been able to do.
We can ensure that they integrate all modes of transport: soft transport, public transport, water transport - Mr Blokland is right - and rail transport.
We can ensure that they make urban transport more attractive to users.
That is what we are aiming for, and that is why we are calling for a financial instrument. There is Marco Polo, which encourages the use of combined transport. There are the URBAN programmes. We have several European programmes that provide incentives. We are not inventing them this time; that has been going on for years.
Without its being increased, the next financial perspective should be reoriented towards urban transport. That is our proposal.
To conclude, I would say - Madam President, excuse me, I am the rapporteur - to Mr Tajani that, if, tomorrow, we have a very large majority, he should be able to go back to the Commission and say: 'I believe that we must do something, because we have legitimacy and because Parliament has not acted alone'.
(Applause)
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
European citizens' quality of life depends directly on making urban transport more convenient and greener. For this reason, making transport accessible and supporting interoperability are vital actions. At the same time, the investments channelled into these types of public works are an effective way of investing funds provided in the European and national economic recovery plans. This approach is about focusing on citizens in their dual role of workers - through the creation of new jobs - and beneficiaries of transport services and of the improvement in the quality of the environment.
However, numerous European initiatives and recommendations on improving urban mobility need an integrated approach. Observing the principle of subsidiarity does not exclude the need to implement a consistent legal framework and create a common reference framework which includes, apart from integrated recommendations, a comprehensive set of good practices.
As a result of this, the local authorities directly responsible for this matter will have both the opportunity to and interest in strengthening their cooperation with all those interested in the sustainable development of transport at local and regional level.
I too call on the European Commission to urgently draw up the action plan for urban mobility in order to speed up the consistent integration of this sector as part of the European transport network in general.
The existing technologies and means for transporting passengers and goods in an urban environment have reached their absolute limit. Indeed, smaller European cities are already being choked by vehicle traffic. In order for us to improve our citizens' quality of life, we must speed up the development and implementation of scientific research and innovation in the area of urban mobility. It is definitely the case that channelling resources into simply expanding the existing infrastructure will not help us overcome the growing crisis. We must find new, 'intelligent' solutions for tackling not only current, but also future problems with urban transport. This is why I welcome the suggestion for developing a new generation CIVITAS programme as I think that the focus must be on developing the next generation of information technology for managing traffic flows.
The integrated planning approach adopted in recent years is relatively widely used in drawing up urban plans for larger cities in Europe.
The creation and funding of a permanent European structure, which will gather and spread good practice in this area, as well as promote dialogue between the interested parties from every region of the European Union, will mark a new, important step towards encouraging sustainable mobility in urban areas.


Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes


Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes


Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law


Adjournment of the session


Opening of the sitting
(ES) Mr President, yesterday, because of the time it took to get through our work here in the House, there was no opportunity to mention the recent death of Orlando Zapata, which the Spanish delegation sincerely laments. He died after a long hunger strike. He is the first prisoner of conscience to die in Cuba in 40 years, and we are calling here for the release of all prisoners of conscience in Cuba and in the rest of the world. We would also like to express our solidarity with his family and with the Cuban people on their path to pluralism and development.
This very sad occasion could act as a catalyst for a discussion aimed at positioning the relations between the European Union and Cuba, within a comprehensive bilateral framework providing for permanent, constructive dialogue on human rights, on an equal footing with the European Union's agreements with third countries.


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes


7. Crisis in the dairy farming sector (vote)


37. Interim Agreement with Turkmenistan (


Documents received: see Minutes


3. Minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment (


7. Amendment of the single CMO Regulation (


Voting time
The next item is the vote.
(For results and other details of the vote: see Minutes)
Mr President, I rise under Rule 166, on a point of order, to draw the attention of the President to a failure to respect Parliament's Rules of Procedure, specifically in relation to Question Time yesterday. I think this has become a moveable feast, as has voting time in this Parliament. Questions are put in an order to suit the Commission and the Council, not Members; then questions are amalgamated, and supplementary questions are taken together. Yesterday, only 12 questions were reached. For those of us who have few opportunities to speak, this makes participating in plenary almost impossible. We elect a President, Vice-Presidents and group leaders to look after the interests of Parliament and Members. This is not happening. I would ask that it be revisited and that the role of Members in plenary - who stand in place of the public - be defended and not sacrificed to every whim of anybody else who wants to come into this Chamber. The rights of Members must be defended by the Chair, not abrogated by the Chair at every hand's turn. I protest very strongly that that is what is happening in this plenary.
(Applause)
Thank you very much, Mr Mitchell. Your comments and your complaint will be duly considered at the next meeting of the Bureau.
(DE) Mr President, I should just like to warn Mr Mitchell: for years I have been told each time that it will be discussed at the next meeting of the Bureau, but nothing ever changes.
(Applause)
Mr Posselt, your comment will also be conveyed to the Bureau.
(Laughter)


Rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Ludford, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the draft directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings (00001/2010 - C7-0005/2010 -.
rapporteur. - Madam President, it has been recognised by most of us for over a decade that the EU needed to act to strengthen the rights of suspects and defendants throughout the Union and to give safeguards necessary to ensure fair trials. This is in the context of much tighter cooperation on policing and prosecution, the introduction of the European arrest warrant and the fact that many EU citizens take advantage of free movement rights and may have a brush with the law in an unfamiliar environment.
There was an attempt at a comprehensive measure on so-called procedural guarantees, one that MEPs strongly supported, but that ran up against a brick wall in the Council in 2007.
I was delighted that last year the Commission (and I am delighted to see Vice-President Reding here for this debate), supported by the Swedish Presidency, revived the matter in the form of a road map of half a dozen individual measures. This is the first to see the light of day. This directive says that, if you become a suspect or you are arrested, questioned or put on trial and you do not understand the language of the country, you have a right to interpretation and translation, under certain conditions, for police questioning, hearings, meetings with your lawyer and so on. Broadly speaking, you have to be put in the same position as a local.
The basis of cooperation between Member States in criminal justice is mutual recognition, the almost automatic recognition of the decisions of courts in other EU countries based on mutual trust, but it is not sensible just to assume that trust exists. It has to be earned through full respect by all EU countries of certain standards of justice and fair trial.
All of us in this debate have probably dealt with cases where we do not believe someone got a fair trial. I have recently dealt with the case of Garry Mann, who was returned to Portugal under a European Arrest Warrant. In the original trial both the charge and sentence were delivered orally. Mr Mann did not know what he was charged with until after he was convicted. The interpreter was a local hairdresser, a friend of the judge's wife. When he was deported back to the UK he was given a simple letter in English effectively saying not to come back to Portugal for two years, yet years later a European Arrest Warrant was issued to summon him back to serve sentence.
Lack of a proper and professional language support has also figured as one of the defects in the case I am dealing with in Greece of Andrew Symeou.
The aim of this measure is not only to make sure that Member States are implementing Article 6 of the European Convention, but also to further develop its minimum standards. As the road map last November said, there is room for further action on the part of the EU to ensure full implementation in respect of convention standards and, where appropriate, to ensure consistent application of those standards and to raise them.
I believe Parliament made good use of its newly acquired Lisbon Treaty powers of joint responsibility for legislation. We fought hard with a lot of help from Vice-President Reding, to whom I pay tribute, and her officials, to raise standards on certain key points, including interpretation of communications between the suspect and the lawyer in all phases of the proceedings, the right for the suspect to challenge the decision that there is no need for interpretation or translation, and also the right to complain on quality.
We secured the right to limit recourse to partial translation, so all essential material must be translated and oral exceptions must indeed be exceptions, and that the suspect should not be allowed to waive the right to translation without prior advice. Those are just some of the key points.
To sum up, I believe strongly in the European arrest warrant, but we need the road-map programme to strengthen citizens' rights and make it work better. Strengthening safeguards and defence rights is not at all about being soft on crime. It is about being tough on crime. Good efficient justice through high-quality decisions means catching more criminals, and cutting corners on costs is not best value since if you get a poor court decision or bad police practice, then people are going to appeal.
Cheap justice is no justice. I therefore commend this directive to you. I thank the Spanish Presidency, with whom we have a good process of negotiation as well as with the Commission, and I will deal in my summing-up with the plenary amendments being tabled.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, that is right. Procedural safeguards represent a top priority in the justice area for the coming years because we need those minimum standards for the rights of the defendants in criminal proceedings. They are indispensable to promote real mutual trust between the judicial authorities of different Member States. Without this trust, mutual recognition will never work properly.
Judges and prosecutors must be confident that, no matter where the proceedings take place in the Union, a common core of basic rights will be upheld. Citizens must be sure that minimum standards for procedural rights will enforce their trust in our justice system and also in the EU as an area of freedom and security and justice.
That is why I warmly welcome the agreement reached by the two co-legislators. I would like to give specific thanks to the rapporteur, Baroness Ludford, and the whole LIBE Committee for their excellent work on this file.
As Commissioner, I am pleased that many of the compromise solutions take inspiration from our March 2010 proposal. The proposal was meant to reach what Parliament has now reached, namely to ensure high standards for defendants and to avoid any risk of falling below the European Convention on Human Rights acquis. The directive, as it is now on the table, will increase the minimum standards. Consistent provision of interpretation throughout criminal proceedings and translation of essential documents will simply result in the right to a fair trial being upheld in a more systematic and streamlined way. I fully agree with the rapporteur that cheap justice is no justice and leads to more costs in the end as well as to a lack of trust from both judges and citizens.
I am also very glad that it was possible to have a very swift adoption of this directive. This is the first step on the road map which indicates that all institutions are living up to the pledge they made to treat this file as a matter of priority.
There is only one element with which I have to disagree, and that is the request by some Member States to extend the implementation period to 36 months. The Commission considers that three years is excessively long because none of the Member States submitted any evidence that the implementation of this piece of legislation would be very difficult. In addition, the Member States also knew that this legislation would be adopted and have already known this for several years.
Having said that, in a spirit of compromise, I will accept the solution. What I say now is very important for the future. On the understanding that this will not set a precedent for future road map measures - and I would like to underline this three times - I will say 'yes' this time but not again. I would also like to emphasise that the Commission will deploy all the necessary resources at its disposal to enforce the Member States' obligations concerning the timely and correct implementation of the decision. This is in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty and with the Stockholm Programme.
As you know, the Commission is already working on the subsequent road map measures. I will very shortly be putting forward a proposal on the right to information - the letter of rights. This will be presented in the coming week, so what we have initiated today will be work in progress.
I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Baroness Ludford, on all her efforts on this and thank her for the way in which she has worked with the shadow rapporteurs.
The existence of common standards is an essential condition for instilling mutual trust in Member States' legal systems. The right to a fair trial for suspects or defendants is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, failing any suitable standards in terms of the defence process, there is the risk of creating imbalances between the instruments which the prosecution has available and the degree of protection afforded to the rights of suspects or defendants.
Efforts have been made to consolidate procedural rights in the European Union for a long time. The initial steps were taken in November 2000 when the Council, in accordance with the Tampere Conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. This was followed by a proposal from the Commission on a framework decision for certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings in 2004. An agreement could not be reached and negotiations were abandoned in June 2007. Then came the road map from the Swedish Presidency in July 2009, which proposed a gradual approach to procedural rights. The Commission tabled a proposal in July 2009 and in December 2009, after the Treaty of Lisbon and the amended legal framework had come into force. Finally, we have the initiative from the 13 Member States.
Here we are now, after almost seven years, on the way to adopting the first measure featuring in the road map for procedural rights: the Directive on the rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. I wish to say how pleased I am with the outcome achieved following the negotiations between institutions. The text we are due on Wednesday to vote on makes significant improvements to the Member States' proposal.
I sincerely hope that the three-year implementation period is not going to set a precedent for the subsequent measures in the road map and that Member States will make every effort to apply all the provisions of the Directive as quickly as possible in a proper, consistent and fair manner.
Madam President, I am also satisfied with the conclusion of this work, and I thank Baroness Ludford particularly for the way that she has worked with all the shadow rapporteurs.
This is the first text under the ordinary legislative procedure in which Parliament has had a decisive voice regarding the draft directive put forward by the three Member States, and it is important that a British MEP was the rapporteur for this text.
As has already been mentioned, the Member States have used the prerogative granted by the Treaty of Lisbon on criminal judicial cooperation in order to put forward initiatives, but the lack of progress on procedural rights since 2004 was partially resolved by this first right on the road map put forward by the Swedish Presidency.
The way was open, and it was temporarily blocked by the election of the new Commission. In this case, the Commission also decided to put forward its own draft directive, which it was drawing up. Parliament made amendments to the Commission's work. This has therefore been an example of good institutional cooperation, so that no time is wasted and these primary procedural rights can be introduced more quickly.
This meant that the work could be sped up. We now hope, as the Commissioner has just said, that the remaining rights, the Charter of Rights, which is the second in the package of procedural guarantees, will be in Parliament as soon as possible. We also hope that the rest of the package will come soon, as it would be pointless for it to be delayed so that we could not complete it within a reasonable period.
As the other speakers have already said, the area of freedom, security and justice cannot be created if we do not begin with the principle of these procedural guarantees. How are we going to live in a safe, just and free area if Europeans can be arbitrarily detained and become suspects, if they do not have these procedural guarantees, these minimum standards in the Member States? In that case, what is the significance of the Europe that we want to build?
It is true, as other speakers have also said, that the threats of terrorism and organised crime require us to strengthen our security measures, and an example of this is the European arrest warrant. We are all aware, however, that if we do not have this Europe of justice and freedom we will not have designed the future that we want.
(The speaker agreed to answer a question asked under the 'blue card' procedure (Rule 149(8)))
Madam President, I should like to ask Mrs Romero whether it has occurred to her that citizens in countries with much higher standards of individual rights, for example, the United Kingdom, are subjected to the much lower standards of individual rights prevalent in other European countries under the European Arrest Warrant and the other European Justice directives.
Has that occurred to you?
(ES) Yes, the question is probably regarding the minimum standards that we are hoping to achieve for the Member States, but obviously every Member State can increase those standards, and that is of course your intention.
This means building Europe so that we can live in an area with the desired minimum standards for all Member States, but with the historical tradition of your country and of so many other countries that are part of Europe I am sure there is no doubt that those standards are going to increase even more.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the security and law enforcement authorities are working ever closer together to improve the cross-border prosecution of crimes in order to protect the safety of citizens in the European Union. In this regard, I could mention the European Arrest Warrant, for example. In return, however, the fundamental rights of citizens accused of crimes are being left out of the legislation. Up to now, all attempts to secure the guarantees afforded by the rule of law in criminal proceedings throughout the EU have failed to achieve the requisite unanimity in the Council or to receive mutual recognition.
With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, we now have new opportunities for protecting the basic procedural rights of citizens in criminal proceedings. Now, for the first time, the European Parliament has the power of codecision, and only a qualified majority is now required in the Council.
As you know, we in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe are in favour of protecting and continuing to extend citizens' rights. Therefore, we have also worked to ensure that, in future, all EU citizens will have the right to an interpreter and to a written translation if they are arrested by the police or brought before a court as an accused person in a Member State whose language they do not speak or understand.
It is vital not only that criminal proceedings be better coordinated across borders, but also that the rights of citizens in criminal investigations and proceedings - for example, the right to a fair trial - be adequately available to citizens throughout Europe.
Madam President, the question that Mrs Romero López was just asked was obviously very fundamentally important. This is precisely why we are seeking to establish minimum procedural standards to enable us to have confidence in other Member States where the extradition of someone suspected or accused of a crime, for example, is concerned.
I wish to thank the rapporteur for her excellent teamwork with all our shadow rapporteurs. Most important of all is that we now have a directive which must guarantee that everyone has the right to understand the authorities and the proceedings in a court of law and to be understood in such situations, which is one of the basic preconditions of the rule of law.
I would also thank the rapporteur for taking the trouble to find solutions to help us surmount certain problems that various Member States have owing to different judicial cultures. It is, of course, regrettable that it will be 36 months before the directive enters into force. Nevertheless, I think that we will have to accept this outcome, because in any case it is one which, in terms of its content, allows us to move forward.
(GA) Madam President, my attention was drawn to one important issue too late for me to table amendments in committee - a committee of which I am not a member. This relates to the languages which are covered by the directive.
We appreciate the reference to 'interpretation and translation ... in the native language of the suspected or accused person' in paragraph 10(e) of the agreed text. However, there is a danger that the provision 'or in any other language that he understands' could be used to limit the choice of languages and to force the accused or suspected individual to use a language which is not of his choosing, a language which could put him or her at a disadvantage when dealing with potentially complicated legal issues.
Can the Commissioner promise that this is not the case and that this directive also relates to minority languages?
Our amendments refer to various international and European instruments regarding the use of minority and regional languages. In particular, we refer to Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes, among other things, the principle of non-discrimination in relation to language choice.
We hope that the amendments will clarify this languages issue, that they will remove any doubt, and that they will be supported.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, this directive is one of a series whose total effect is that every citizen and resident of the United Kingdom is subject to being carted off to jail in other European countries. Whether the country is Portugal, in the case of Garry Mann, or Hungary, in the case of two south-western constituents, there is simply not the same legal protection for the individual as pertains in the United Kingdom - whatever illusions have been pedalled in this Chamber.
Therefore this translation directive is a fig leaf. It is trying to stick plaster over the near-decapitation of Britain's hard-won liberties at the hand of the European Arrest Warrant. I would note that, even in its own terms, this directive is flawed. The decision as to what is relevant for translation lies largely with the prosecutor. Moreover, there is a chronic and absolute shortage of translators and interpreters, not least because the institutions of the European Union absorb so many.
Our distinguished colleague, Baroness Ludford, has characterised herself many times as a campaigner for human rights. I would ask her, therefore, just this once to put aside her obsession with a federal Europe and join our campaign to repeal the European Arrest Warrant. That is what matters.
(MT) The proposal we have before us this evening is a good one which deserves our support, since it grants more - rather than fewer - rights to European Union citizens. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) will be voting in favour, but we will not be voting for the amendments which will be tabled, so as not to upset the delicate compromise which has been reached. During this speech I would, however, like to address the somewhat ambiguous situation which has arisen between the Council and the Commission with regard to the presentation of this legislative proposal. In fact, not one, but two proposals were tabled. Last December we had a legislative proposal by the Council of Ministers, and in March of this year the Commission presented another proposal about exactly the same subject. The question which arose before this Parliament concerns the ambiguous matter of which text we are we going to work on in this Parliament. In fact, I do not think this is the first time that something similar has happened, and nor will it be the last. In fact, we have to deal with another proposal from the Council of Ministers concerning the European Protection Order, while the European Commission has already declared its intention to present its own proposal. The Council is asking us to accept its proposal - I am referring to the proposal regarding the European Protection Order - while the Commission is asking us not to accept it. Those who drafted the Treaty, who empowered the Council to present its own legislative proposals, certainly never intended to create ambiguous situations of this sort, where two institutions argue about whose proposal should be accepted. In my view, in cases where the Commission intends to present a proposal, it should be allowed to do so, while the Council should refrain from presenting its own proposal. Otherwise, we would end up in situations characterised by ambiguity and bickering, which are best avoided.
Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Baroness Ludford for her excellent work on behalf of human rights.
I am now speaking on behalf of the European Free Alliance MEPs, representing regions and minorities. I stress that the directive also applies to non-official languages of the European Union. It means that the translation and interpretation referred to in the document should be guaranteed in regional and minority languages. For example, in those judicial districts in which the number of residents using regional or minority languages justifies it, the possibility of using such languages must be afforded. It is a pity that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is not yet part of the acquis but I am sure that it will be one day, and that the use of such languages in criminal proceedings will be provided for to a greater extent, although by the EU alone.
(HU) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all allow me to congratulate the rapporteur on her perseverance, since a measure that has been under discussion for years appears at last, thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon, to be reaching fruition. It is the first of the five measures on the Council's roadmap to be realised. The directive is of fundamental importance, since at a time when we can live and move freely within the territory of the European Union, it is important for a citizen to be able to understand, in circumstances as difficult as the commencement of criminal proceedings, what is happening to him or her and be able to make himself or herself understood.
This initiative, arising from the context of the Stockholm Programme, is one of those that give concrete reality to the fundamental aims of the European Union. This is what lends EU law and Community efforts a sense that they are dealing with the actual lives of people, and renders the Stockholm Programme accessible to citizens. I unfailingly support the inclusion of the relevant provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights. After Lisbon and on the verge of our accession to the Convention on Human Rights, this is only to be expected.
At the same time, I consider it important to draw attention to an essential issue that the report does not address. Citizens who belong to a national minority, often quite a large one, within a given Member State should have the same right to use their native language in criminal proceedings as citizens who find themselves by happenstance in that Member State. Moreover, it is precisely under this measure of EU law that that person will be able to use his or her native language.
This important legal advance should impel Member States to ensure that this principle is also fulfilled in the case of their own citizens who speak a national minority language. Consistency within the Union demands that in transposing EU law, regulations falling within the Member States' own sphere of competence, such as in this case the use of minority languages, should also be updated.
(PT) The fact that the Member States' governments could not agree put an end to the first attempt to introduce an EU legal measure to ensure greater uniformity in procedural guarantees throughout the Union.
This new, gradual approach starts with the right to translation and interpretation in criminal proceedings, and is the first of six planned measures on the road map. The right to a written translation of important procedural documents does not currently exist in all Member States. Even when it does exist, this right can vary considerably. The right to interpretation between suspects and their lawyers, for example, is not always guaranteed. This directive confers these rights on anyone suspected or accused of committing a criminal offence until the proceedings are closed.
I support the agreement reached in the trilogue. The compromises achieved respond to most of the concerns raised by Parliament and to those resulting from the Commission's proposal. I congratulate Commissioner Reding on having put forward a good proposal in the first place, and I congratulate Baroness Ludford, our rapporteur, on the compromises she was able to obtain on most points.
I particularly emphasise the written translation of documents essential to the proceedings and the guarantee that the level of protection should never be inferior to that laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
I hope the Member States will quickly implement what has been agreed and will not leave transposing this important directive until the last minute.
I was very pleased to hear Mrs Reding assure us that she is going to put forward more road map proposals straight away, and I would like to encourage her to do so. We have to make it clear that we are consistently building the Europe of justice, and not just the Europe of security and the Europe of freedom. Finally, I am pleased to see that all the Member States apart from Denmark will be covered by these rules, since both the United Kingdom and Ireland have exercised their right to opt in.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to offer my sincere thanks for the way you have spoken out so passionately in favour of the procedural rights and standards that will bring us ever closer towards an internal market for justice. I am very pleased that we have finally managed, thanks also to Mrs Antonescu, to eradicate the summary procedures from this area. It would have been very nice to lay down even more requirements for the translators, because what good is a translation if you cannot guarantee the quality of the translator? The implementation time of three years is, in my opinion, painful, but I do not think it will disadvantage those affected in any way, because they have the European Convention on Human Rights and the entire judicial service will also have to be changed. That is important for jurisprudence, too. I therefore thank you that it has gone so well. Thank you very much.
(DE) Madam President, this report represents progress for Europe. It is a good step towards creating a Europe of lawfulness. However, a great deal will depend on whether the framework decision will now actually be applied uniformly, as the uniform application of this framework decision is absolutely crucial. If there are differences in the minimum legal standard, it will not be possible to create trust in the relevant legal systems. We need to create trust.
Personally, I would like to say that I would have liked the administrative penalty procedure to have also been included, as it now means that a very important legal area is not covered. However, I am, of course, aware that this is an especially important and broad field. I hope that this aspect will also be satisfied soon during the implementation of the Stockholm Programme.
Madam President, the fundamental problem with the European Arrest Warrant is not inadequate translation services, but rather that it has rendered national courts completely powerless to protect their own citizens against unjust extradition in the first place.
My constituent Andrew Symeou has been held for 11 months awaiting trial in the Greek prison of Korydallos. Six more British citizens, including Daniel Bell and George Hollands, face extradition and remand in Korydallos.
The British court is not even allowed to consider the so-called evidence against them. In Korydallos, prisoners are kept four to a cell designed for one, the toilet is a hole in the corner, no toilet paper is supplied, drugs and violence are rife and the screams of rape victims can be heard at night.
The British Government should be ashamed of itself that, on the strength of a piece of paper, it is prepared to consign British citizens to what can only be described as a shithole.
Madam President, it is self-evidently right that people facing criminal proceedings should have interpretation and translation services, especially since the European Arrest Warrant allows people to be extradited for acts that are not even offences in their own country. However, this is one of the unspoken costs of large-scale migration - one that was not admitted at the time that it started.
(EL) Madam President, I too wish to take my turn in thanking the rapporteur for the very fruitful cooperation which we had. Many of us in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs tabled amendments to this very important report and these amendments are now included in the final text.
In fact, the procedure was extremely difficult. However, the conclusions are fruitful. In fact, when we come to voting on this directive, we should all recognise that, within the framework of criminal proceedings, we are further consolidating protection for the rights of defendants who speak a different language.
However, the three years before us, within the framework of this road map for application, are time enough. We expect a great deal from the Commission in terms of application and tangible results following the transposition of this directive. We have great expectations. We hope that a great deal will change. However, what is important, as previous speakers rightly said, is that we do not leave everything to the last minute.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, may I thank all the Members of this House who have, in a very credible and strong way, supported the area of justice which we have started to build.
The European Treaty of Lisbon gives us the possibility now - by giving us the tools - to move forward step by step, putting in place the rights of the citizens, be it the rights of the convicted, or the rights of the victims. Everything is in the pipeline and will come quickly.
The question related to more proposals forming part of the road map: yes, after the right of interpretation, which I am sure the House will endorse tomorrow, there will be the right of information, the letter of rights which I will put on the table of this House before summer. That will then be followed by the right to legal advice and the right to communicate with people who are dear to the heart.
So you see we are going in a direction which aims to achieve the following: the same high level of rights for all EU citizens wherever they are, whatever their problem. It does not matter whether they are travelling for study, for business or for leisure: they should feel at home, and have the same rights as they have at home, wherever they find themselves in Europe.
One very important question which has been underlined by several members is the question of language. Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) state very clearly that the accused person who does not understand or speak the language of the criminal proceedings concerned has to be provided with interpretation and a translation of the documents. Now this implicitly means that the language into which the proceedings are translated is the language that this person understands. So in fact it does not concern only European Union languages or minority languages. It concerns the language of the person who is in front of a tribunal. I believe that this is only fair because we have to have fair proceedings in order to build the trust of the citizens in our justice system and also, and this is of the utmost importance, in order to ensure the mutual trust of the judges and the prosecutors in neighbouring countries' systems, which cannot be achieved unless we also have a comparable level of rights.
There was one question by Mr Busuttil and other Members about procedures - not about procedural rights, but about internal procedures - due to the coexistence of a Member State initiative and of a Commission proposal. Well I must say that in this case this really did not hamper in any way the swift adoption of a very high-quality and balanced legislative instrument.
Why did it happen? We are now in a very peculiar period. We are coming out of the third pillar and find ourselves in a normal codecision situation. I suppose that after some months we will have learned how best to utilise the tools which are at our disposal in order to reach the best solutions very swiftly. And when I say reaching the best solutions, I mean in the way we used to prepare such solutions: by having an impact assessment, by also having a call for people to come in and say what they think about our proposals. These are the normal proceedings which we are used to and which will guarantee in the end, via the codecision procedure and after having a public consultation and an impact assessment, that we achieve sound policy. Sound policy which then can be implemented at national level without creating more distortions than rights, as unfortunately has happened in the past.
But we are here with a new Treaty, we are here with a Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are going to become a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. I am very confident that, if we should meet together some years from now, we will say, yes, together we have constructed that area of justice and fundamental rights which our continent must become.
rapporteur. - Madam President, I would like very sincerely to thank my high-quality shadow rapporteurs for their help. I am pleased we are debating and voting this directive this week, still under the Spanish Presidency. It is historic, being the first criminal justice measure negotiated under codecision and the first EU fair trial law.
I strongly agree with Vice-President Reding about the three-year implementation period. It was very cheeky of Member States to slip this in unilaterally after we had reached a Council-Parliament deal. They will not get away with it again. I say to UKIP that there is no call to get nationalistic about the quality of justice. I am strongly critical of the lower UK standards that developed over the last decade like control orders, which are house arrest, and 20-day detention without charge. I hope the new government returns fully to the rule of law.
I am very pleased that my country and Ireland have exercised their opt-in to participate, so this directive will cover 26 countries. This directive is in the spirit of Magna Carta, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, whereas UKIP would let bank robbers and terrorists escape justice.
Turning to the amendments, Mrs de Brún explained the amendments on the rights to use European regional or minority languages. While having sympathy with their motivation, I have to oppose them because they do not in fact fit the directive. The test in the directive is one of comprehension and ability to express oneself, as Vice-President Reding said. It is not about the right to choose as such, so there has to be a procedure of verification of the person's ability to speak and understand and, if they do not accept the language offered, the option would be to challenge the decision. Member State national laws specifying minority language rights are unaffected, although in practice those rights are arguably increased in that if the speaker of a minority language is unable to understand the proceedings then the directive's rights apply equally to them.
I ask that the directive be passed unamended and quickly so that it gets on the statute book. I look forward to Commission proposals on the further road map measures - the first expected in about a fortnight - and I know that in the hands of our feisty champion, Vice-President Reding, they are in very good hands.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Madam President, Baroness Ludford has said in the past in these debates that somehow UKIP and I personally want to make life easier for gangsters and bank robbers on the Costa del Sol. She has mentioned that kind of thing again.
Baroness Ludford, can I ask you: do you actually have a figure for the number of criminals and bank robbers who have been returned to Britain from the Costa del Sol since the European Arrest Warrant has been in operation?
rapporteur. - Madam President, no, but I am sure I can research that and let Mr Batten know the figure.
In return, Mr Batten, can I ask a question of you who, like me, represents London? Hussain Osman, one of the attempted bombers in London in July 2005 escaped to Italy, no doubt hoping to disappear there. In the past, he might have languished for years without being brought back to court. He was brought back within six weeks. He was convicted and he is now serving a sentence under a terrorism conviction. You, I suppose, would have been happy that he would never have been brought back to trial.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday 16 June 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
The proposal for a draft Framework Decision establishes fundamental obligations based on the European Convention on Human Rights and European Court case law. The right to interpretation and translation is essential for those who must defend themselves in a criminal trial and cannot speak the language of the proceeding. Moreover, under Article 6 of the Treaty, the Union respects the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which upholds the right to a fair trial.
The text we are discussing today is a satisfactory and fully acceptable compromise. In the compromise solutions, the Presidency in fact safeguarded the essential points indicated by Member States with regard to costs arising from implementation of the directive and the transposition period. In the light of all this, I am pleased by the results achieved within the Council and European Parliament: interpretation must be offered in the mother tongue of the suspect or in a language known to the suspect, while translation will be offered only for the essential documents and the possibility of drawing up oral summaries of the main documents will be considered.
One of the aims of the European Union is to create a single area of justice with common rules, a high level of cooperation and at the same time procedural guarantees for the parties involved. Matters are even more sensitive when it comes to criminal trials where, due to the sensitivity of the subject and, in many cases, the severity of the crime and the penalty, it is necessary to have a high level of judicial certainty and ensure that rights are respected.
With the coming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union must not only respect the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but also use it as a basis for establishing laws at EU level that offer protection to suspects and defendants in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In particular, with regard to the right to interpretation and translation, it is essential to guarantee all defendants the opportunity to be fully aware of all documents in the trial and to be able to understand and express themselves in their own language with a guarantee of being offered translation and interpretation. The opportunity for each citizen to have the same faculties and enjoy the same rights and guarantees as those they enjoy in their own country of origin is an essential requirement of the single area.
Irrespective of their merits, the free movement of persons, which is one of the European Union's greatest achievements, and continued immigration also have a darker side, which is the rise in the number of crimes being committed by foreign nationals. When the suspect is a foreign national, language barriers present a significant problem for conducting criminal proceedings efficiently. If court decisions are to be recognised without reservation by other Member States, minimum trial guarantees should be in force in each country. The right of the accused to be informed of the charge in his or her own language is undoubtedly a fundamental element in the right to a defence, without which no trial can be a fair one. The draft directive on interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings will, therefore, serve its purpose here, irrespective of whether adequate principles are already in force anyway in EU Member States. I am very pleased that, by way of a compromise between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, Parliament has finally given up the introduction of many unreasonable demands which could have paralysed criminal proceedings, particularly in more straightforward cases. I am convinced that the draft directive in its present form will serve to build trust between the justice systems of Member States, while also respecting their different legal traditions.


47. 2008 discharge: EU general budget, Economic and Social Committee