Formal sitting: Welcoming of the Bulgarian and Romanian Members
Ladies and gentlemen, it is with joy and excitement that we today welcome the 153 new Members from Bulgaria and Romania. On behalf of us all, I welcome you most warmly and wish you great success in your first term of office as Members of the European Parliament.
I am also pleased to welcome the Presidents of the national parliaments of Romania and Bulgaria, who join us in the public gallery ...
(The House rose and applauded the new Members)
Mr Olteanu, President of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies, Mr Vacaroiu, President of the Romanian Senate and Mr Pirinski, President of the Bulgarian National Assembly, I welcome you too to the European Parliament.
We are now a grand assembly of 785 MEPs from 27 countries and - alarming as it may seem - 177 political parties. In a few months' time, Romanians and Bulgarians will go to the polls to elect their European representatives. From today, Parliament will do all it can to help make them aware of how important it is for them to take part in the first European elections to take place in Romania and Bulgaria.
I was recently able to see for myself just how enthusiastic Romanians and Bulgarians are about Europe. I was made aware of this at the official ceremonies that took place in Bucharest on 31 December 2006 and in Sofia on 1 January 2007. From both a personal and a political point of view, these were undoubtedly among the most memorable moments of my term of office, as well as being encouraging, given the Euroscepticism emerging in other capital cities.
I was able to see how proud Romanians and Bulgarians are to be European citizens now. Everything of concern to them is now of much more concern to ourselves than it was before. The case of the Bulgarian nurses condemned to death in Libya is now a European matter. There needs to be no let-up in the EU's championing of these European citizens, and - without forgetting, either, the Palestinian doctor who is also condemned to death - I would take this opportunity again to call on the Libyan Government to take action on their behalf.
(Loud applause)
My fellow Members from Romania and Bulgaria, you bring with you your history, your culture and your faith in Europe. You are bringing a new maritime dimension to the EU - that of the Black Sea - whose strategic importance we are all aware of at the present time, given that a good proportion of our energy resources pass through the Black Sea. We are in the middle of a debate on energy policy, and your two countries' geographical location will undoubtedly do a great deal to enhance Europe's influence internationally.
You are giving us a closer view of people now less distant from us. I am sure that, as citizens of two countries that share a border with the Western Balkans, you will make a decisive contribution to the Europe we are building.
With the accession of Romania, there are now four European Union countries that share a border with Ukraine and one that shares a border with Moldova, a state of affairs that can only enhance the European Neighbourhood Policy.
With Bulgaria's accession, there are now two countries that share a border with Turkey, and in this case too I am sure that Bulgaria's experience will be extremely useful to us.
Your countries and their peoples have made a huge effort to join the European Union. It is an effort of which we are perhaps not sufficiently aware, but one that you have made. What is more, you have a lot still to do. As you are well aware, in November 2006 the European Parliament urged your governments not to slacken the pace of reform. We believe that you are better placed to carry out the reforms from within, rather than from outside, the EU, and monitoring these will be a joint effort.
For all of us, the demanding task of getting to know each other begins today. Ancient Tracia, Dacia and the like, which were part of Europe before our continent had a name, have rejoined the family and returned to the Europe to which they always belonged. Their return will be as enriching as that of other parts of Europe on 1 May 2004.
We have major challenges before us, and I am certain that we shall work together to meet them. You are welcome, then.
(Applause)
I now invite you to listen to the anthem of the European Union.
(The House rose and listened to the European anthem)


Voting time
The next item is the vote.


The impact of cohesion policy on the integration of vulnerable communities and groups (debate)
The next item is the debate on the report by Gábor Harangozó, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the impact of cohesion policy on the integration of vulnerable communities and groups.
rapporteur. - (HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Commissioner Hübner, ladies and gentlemen, there are regions, and people living in those regions, that are unable to avail themselves of the opportunities we seek to provide for them out of Community resources in order to enable them to catch up with the European Union average as quickly as possible and put an end to the poverty in which they are living.
I initiated this report in order to investigate the reasons why we have been unable to bring about development in these regions, and to make recommendations with a view to changing this situation and putting an end to it. As the European Commission's Fourth Progress Report on Cohesion states, cohesion policy functions very well at national level in some countries. In practical terms, more vigorous development and positive progress towards cohesion have begun to take place in countries that have already acceded to EU membership and are receiving cohesion funds. If we look at slightly lower territorial levels, however, we can see that inter-regional disparities are not diminishing to the same extent. I would like to cite Hungary as an example: in Hungary, per capita GDP in the central region has reached 110% of the European Union average; in four out of Hungary's seven regions, however, per capita GDP is less than 45% of the EU average. In these cases the disparity is at least no longer increasing. In many instances, however, as the Fourth Report on Cohesion also states, territorial disparities within regions are continuing to increase.
What could be the reason why some regions are able to use the available opportunities to their advantage, while others are not? If we look a little more closely, we find that there are some very serious underlying structural reasons, structural reasons at the territorial level. In territories where little development is taking place, the human capacity for generating appropriate projects is clearly lacking, the basic infrastructure for getting investment into these territories is lacking, and appropriate education and proper healthcare are lacking. There are several micro-regions, for example in Hungary, where the life expectancy of the male population is more than 15 years lower than the national average.
What should we do about it? Since the problem we are dealing with is a highly complex one, and is clearly concentrated in certain micro-territories and micro-regions, I believe we must assess whether it is right to examine cohesion policy at inter-regional level only, at the level of the regions. Would it not be better instead to examine whether we need more focused, more precisely targeted measures at the level of the micro-regions where the worst of the problems are? From now on our first point of departure must be to examine the nature of the statistics we are using as a basis for our decision making. I was aware of this problem while preparing this report, but I cannot give you any concrete basis for statistical comparison, as there is a lack of comparable micro-regional statistical data throughout the EU. From now on we must examine whether it is appropriate, although these are primarily rural areas, to tie rural cohesion into agricultural policy. Would it not be much more appropriate to deal with the problems of rural areas in the context of cohesion policy and using cohesion policy instruments, allowing agricultural policy measures to play a purely complementary role?
At this juncture I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their exceptionally constructive work in helping to produce the report. At the same time, I would also like to point out that, following the several weeks of negotiations, and after I had accepted the report of the PPE-DE Group containing a very major amendment on a vital point of the report, the PPE-DE Group then proceeded to vote against its own point. For me this raises the question: what is it that we want? Do we simply want to state that a problem exists, and do nothing more, or are we prepared to face up to the problem and to make recommendations regarding how to change our policy, and to focus more closely on identifying areas where we can actually do something to solve the problem? Thank you very much for your attention.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Harangozó for his report and also for his efforts to achieve a consensual position in his committee on the difficult topic of vulnerable communities and groups. To avoid economic growth being accompanied by social polarisation in our society, cohesion policy targets social exclusion, in particular the integration of vulnerable communities and groups, and it will remain a cohesion policy goal in the future.
It is also true that problems identified in the report are at the frontier between territorial cohesion, on the one hand, and social cohesion challenges on the other, and social polarisation and social segregation problems, when concentrated on some territories, become territorial cohesion issues.
We face social exclusion in the poorest territories of the European Union, but we also have pockets of social deprivation in the richest cities of the European Union. The report calls on the Commission to present a comprehensive definition of territorial cohesion in the framework of the forthcoming Green Paper on territorial cohesion, and I can confirm that the Green Paper to be published at the end of September this year will contribute to the progress towards a common understanding across the Union of the concept of territorial cohesion.
The report also recognises that the notion of vulnerable groups and communities as such is certainly not an easy one and it should not be limited to the Roma communities only. However, it is generally recognised that the situation of Roma communities deserves special focus in Europe. To address the multi-faceted problems of Roma exclusion, we need an integrated approach, and Parliament discussed it in depth in January when adopting a resolution on a European strategy on the Roma. In the package on the renewed social agenda, the Commission will present at the beginning of July its working document on Community instruments and policies for Roma inclusion.
I share the report's opinion on the need to make greater use of the synergies and complementarities among European policies and also among various financial instruments available. The Commission paid much attention to this when negotiating operational programmes of the cohesion policy with the national and regional authorities.
As to the issue of making available comparable intra-regional data for all regions in the European Union, with special regard to social indicators, while essential, I share the report's view here: it is a more complex one. As Members will be aware, Eurostat does not produce data, but manages data provided by the national statistical systems.
We have just completed the second edition of the Urban audit, covering the period up to 2004 and we clearly see how limited the availability of territorial data is below the NUTS 2 classical regional level. To address this challenge and also using the context of preparations of the Green Paper on territorial cohesion, the Directorate General for Regional Policy worked on improving the quality of research on regional policy, including its statistical bases. As a result, the expenditure 2000-2006 is today broken down to the NUTS 3 level, to 20 categories of expenditure at this level, and is available for Objective I regions, Objective II, Urban, Interreg and Cohesion Fund.
Rural audit is still a challenge ahead of us. Unfortunately, I must admit today that reliable data does not yet exist on where particular excluded groups are concentrated, hence it is impossible to cross-match our newly available information on what and where cohesion policy resources are spent on with the location of such groups. I consider that the margin of progress in this area, as it seems today, is rather in specific research, using qualitative analysis.
Once again, I thank Parliament for bringing to our attention all those important issues, and I am looking forward to the debate today.
draftsman of the opinion for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. - (PT) As draftsman of the opinion for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I reiterate the need to support rural areas, including mountain regions, where women play a central role. Their work must be valued and they must also be guaranteed decent incomes.
Well-paid productive activities and high-quality public services must be provided in order to retain young people and prevent rural depopulation. Particular attention must be paid to family farming and to small and medium-scale farmers by reforming the Common Agricultural Policy, which is currently being done, to make it fairer, to combat the rural exodus and to support agricultural products.
I also stress the need to support all less-favoured regions, areas with permanent structural disadvantages, the outermost regions and areas subject to industrial restructuring, relocalisation and company closures in order to reinforce economic and social cohesion and the social inclusion of vulnerable communities and groups.
on behalf of the PPE-DE group. - (RO) Honourable President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank the Rapporteur for the work and efforts made to conciliate different points of view. We all agree that vulnerable groups and communities deal with many difficulties in their development and require special attention within the cohesion policy, as well as the other available financial assistance instruments.
I have supported, during all the work stages, the need to structure the report into two distinct parts: one referring to vulnerable communities, from the point of view of ethnic membership, and the second one referring to vulnerable communities determined by certain geographical handicaps. Unfortunately, our request is not reflected into the current form of the report. Our group has three amendments, of whose approval our vote depends, namely the elimination of recital Ee, whose content is identical to that of recital I, explaining the concept of a vulnerable area or zone by listing them, as well as eliminating paragraph 17. We hope we will have the Rapporteur's approval in this respect.
Finally, I would emphasize two more ideas: the problems of vulnerable communities from any point of view, either ethnic and/or geographical, could be treated more efficiently if there were cooperation in this field between the local, regional, national and European authorities. At the same time, the role of the educational system and the public, social and transport infrastructures is indispensable for integrating vulnerable groups and communities.
I end by specifying that our final position is conditioned, as I have already mentioned, by the acceptance of the three amendments and, especially, the elimination of paragraph 17, which was voted in the Commission. If these amendments are accepted, we will obviously support the report.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur for his work in producing the report that has been presented to us today. I would agree that there is a need for a micro-regional based approach focusing on intra-regional disparities and on the most sensitive areas.
In some cases, intra-regional disparities play an even greater role than differences between regions. We should remember that the objective of, and the assumption behind, European regional policy is the reduction of development differences between individual areas within the European Union, and the phenomenon of territorial exclusion has not yet been taken into consideration in policy instruments. In the new Member States, social segregation and failures as regards the provision of equal opportunities occur most frequently in rural areas, while economic and social initiatives in the regions are concentrated on dynamic centres, principally on urban centres.
Resources to combat poverty and social exclusion vary depending on the country, but, in order to create an EU that is territorially and socially cohesive, we have to implement additional measures aimed at unleashing the potential that is latent in economically backward areas.
on behalf of the ALDE group. - (RO) Honourable President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Rapporteur for his work.
The cohesion policy is vital for the communities in the underdeveloped regions and sub-regions. The social-economic aspects, such as poverty, lack of infrastructure, administrative capacities, deindustrialization, low education and training level, high employment rate, poor living conditions, as well as reduced access to services of general interest transforms these communities into vulnerable groups, which represent an ever greater challenge for the cohesion of the European Union territories. Thus, a relation of interdependence results, between the need to reduce social-economic disparities between regions and the need for social integration of vulnerable groups, a relation that should naturally lead to a constructive process involving a territorial approach both at a national and a European level.
Honourable President, I believe that the absence of statistics regarding the spreading of these groups and their degree of social exclusion, as well as the incapacity of the indicators for measuring inter-regional disparities to supply viable data, prove, one more time, the need for the Member States and the Commission to cooperate more closely in order to obtain a real image of the situation of vulnerable regions and groups, as well as to set up concrete programmes and strategies for territorial development and overcoming social exclusion.
I also believe that Member States should take a first step by identifying these vulnerable groups and setting their priority in the strategic national plans and, afterwards, by developing mechanisms for evaluation and monitoring. We should not forget that, most of the time, migration is a consequence of poverty and the migration phenomenon itself generates instability and conflicts. For this reason, honourable President, we believe that vulnerable groups should benefit, from all Member States, from social assistance, equality of opportunities and, more than that, from specific programmes allowing the development of the regions where they come from.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Harangozó for working on this difficult issue, even though this report does not look at all the issues relating to situations, persons or environments that are excluded or at risk.
Despite the fact that a considerable part of the European Union budget is allocated to the implementation of its cohesion policy, serious disparities still remain. If, for example, we consider per capita GDP: in the wealthiest regions this is nearly 10 times higher than in the poorest regions. We have to bear in mind that significant differences also exist within regions. Poor districts are also to be found within large conurbations. In addition, this is also a significant issue in many rural areas. This poverty can pass down from one generation to the next.
Let us therefore protect children and families from this phenomenon. What is needed here, above all, is the creation of equal opportunities, particularly with regard to education, healthcare and housing. This will be the proof of social and territorial cohesion, which have not yet been properly defined. The prospects of groups living in spatial, cultural and communications isolation are significantly poorer. These are issues involving both technical and social infrastructure, as well as jobs and the creation of a climate of internal activity in these societies.
Let us help our fellow citizens, who are subject to discrimination in one way or another, so that they can regain their belief in escaping from a lowly position in society. In addition, we must break the stereotypes that undervalue these groups. This relates to many people who are disabled or homeless, as well as to gypsy societies that have been discussed here. This type of segregation goes against our common solidarity and is a symptom of a failure to respect human dignity. Let us remember that we often have to deal with families with many children, as well as immigrant families, in these types of environments.
In addition, we need a common policy for creating equality on various levels: on the regional, national and EU levels. We also need volunteers and non-governmental organisations.
(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, I am grateful to Mr Harangozó for his attention to vulnerable groups. Cohesion policy has been making an important contribution to improving conditions for vulnerable groups for a long time now. Take, for example, Ireland, once a country with very vulnerable groups: very high youth unemployment, rundown towns, underdeveloped countryside, with virtually no opportunities. For many other countries, too, social exclusion is to be replaced by employment, education and participation. That is the direction we are going in and it is extremely successful.
My second point: I have seen it said in particular that we know too little, have too little information. I agree that that could be improved, especially by the Member States, the regions and the towns themselves. Mr Harangozó wonders why the life expectancy of Hungarians is 15% lower than average life expectancy in the EU. I do not know either, but I have visited hospitals. Eating and drinking habits are extraordinarily bad, and the European Community can do nothing about that. I think that for people to take responsibility themselves in the regions is one of the most important bases of our policy.
Finally, what is the underlying reason for the EPP being against NUTS 4? We are against it because in 2004 we opted for strengthening of the policy up to 2013, for more substance, more focus. We even decided to include the whole external border, as it were, in the policy on Interreg areas on the external borders. That tends to mean that we will be fragmenting, we will be dissipating our efforts, and that should not be the direction we take in this area in the future. That would be a mistake. I am therefore asking you once again to delete the article concerned. Otherwise I accept the challenge the rapporteur has also set out, to have an intensive debate with each other about territorial cohesion with each other in the next sixth months.
(ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by adding my thanks to the rapporteur for having taken the initiative of drafting a report stating that one of the European Union's fundamental objectives is to reduce social, economic and regional inequalities.
The cohesion policy has made an effective contribution to reducing these inequalities, but a lot remains to be done, as discussed in the fourth report on cohesion.
There are vulnerable groups of people at risk of succumbing to social exclusion and absolute poverty in all regions, including the most prosperous. An integrated approach is needed when addressing deficiencies in equal opportunities. Member States and regional administrations need strategies to revitalise vulnerable areas, develop their infrastructure and promote genuine development opportunities in accordance with their specific economic potential, while maintaining services of general interest through local administrations strengthened by the decentralisation of the public sector.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the targeted, issue-specific nature of the Harangozó report represents an extremely significant move by the European Parliament to reach out to vulnerable communities and groups, and integrate them smoothly, through a European cohesion policy. As an initiative it meets with my full approval, and I acknowledge the effort made by the rapporteur, but I beg to differ with the way the issue has been elaborated. Certain aspects of the report still have no substance, despite the conscientious effort made by my fellow Member.
Some of these aspects deal with vulnerable communities and groups representing a broad spectrum of society and micro-communities, not just the Roma. The European Parliament has already given its attention to this category in a special report, the scope of which should have been broader in order to cover both the social and geographical aspects. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has insisted on the usefulness of this broader approach, but has not been heeded. The report remains one-sided and often takes a short-sighted approach to this issue.
I am bearing in mind the mountain and island regions especially, as no-one can doubt the vulnerability of their communities. They are not mentioned anywhere in the report. I do not approve of constantly avoiding definitions or specific references to things and situations. Let me also point out that vulnerable communities and groups exist not only at inter-regional but also at intra-regional level. They need material and technical support, technological and scientific know-how, education, training and an administrative base. There should be an emphasis on decentralising the public sector and extending transport networks. Here, too, voluntary action might play an important role in these groups and might contribute towards activating and demarginalising them.
Despite the rapporteur's undoubted effort, I cannot say that the overall fabric of the report is satisfactory. It is notable for its ambiguities and lack of clear organisation in its sections. If we wish to contribute towards solving the problems faced by vulnerable groups, the texts we prepare must be clear-cut and explicit and must take a global view of the issue.
Mr President, I would like to congratulate my colleague Mr Harangozó on his own-initiative report.
Special attention to vulnerable groups under the EU's cohesion policy means we have not forgotten that the main priority of this policy is to contribute to the well-being of our citizens.
The regional dimension of this issue is clear. Nevertheless, in order to be able to identify the specific needs and location of the vulnerable groups, it is necessary to analyse the development strength of the small territorial units. Although we could find that vulnerability is a problem at lower levels - in the poorest regions, for example - it has a bearing on the whole territory and touches upon all social categories living there. That is why the policy, strategy and actions to address the problems of vulnerable groups must be comprehensive, based on a common approach on behalf of our institutions at European, national and local level.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first I want to congratulate Gábor Harangozó on the excellent job he has done and for his thoughts on this complex and delicate subject. I wanted to play an active part in the opinion drafted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on this report, for the most vulnerable people are often concentrated in the least developed rural areas and in areas with permanent natural disadvantages, which means that agriculture and rural development policy have a major role to play there.
Cohesion policy must, in my view, seek to maintain income-generating agricultural and non-agricultural activities in rural areas, in order to maintain a population that is often tempted by rural exodus, but also to welcome new arrivals. It is important to promote family farming, which creates jobs, and equal access to public services as also the provision of public services in order to respond to the needs of disadvantaged families, communities and groups. In short, we must make the rural environment attractive and fit to live in. We can achieve that aim by ensuring a linkage between the various policies conducted in these areas and targeted at these fragile groups and, therefore, drawing more on the complementary nature of the various available financial instruments.
(SK) I would like to thank Mr Harangozó for his excellent report, which deals with issues that have not been very prominent to date yet represent a dormant source of what are clearly rather significant problems. I would like to touch upon two concrete areas covered in the report: revitalising vulnerable communities, consisting mainly of people in rural and peripheral areas, and developing the micro-regions that are lagging behind, have an irregular situation in relations to the individual countries' specific characteristics and are almost absent from the current statistics.
Both of the above-mentioned areas are neglected due to the fact that they are not clearly identified. We must clearly define the highly vulnerable communities (both economically and socially) that exist in the European Union, we must analyse the types and locations of the underdeveloped micro-regions in the EU, and we must find solutions to these problems. They are both difficult to see against the background of the global successes of the cohesion policies. We do not want the cohesion policies to be compared to Emmental cheese, which looks very compact on the outside.
(SK) The report in question correctly highlights the relationship between solving social issues and regional development, and the need for Europe to show solidarity and implement the cohesion policy in this area.
Personally, I devote a lot of my time to the problems involved in supporting regions that are lagging behind, especially in Slovakia. Preserving a strong and attractive European countryside is crucial for economic as well as cultural and ecological reasons. I support the call to the Commission to increase, within the framework of the forthcoming Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, the funding needed to deal with regional problems. As part of this process, it will be necessary to ensure that the regions play an active role and to cooperate closely with the NGOs.
In this context, I would also like to say that the social activities carried out by churches and religious societies merit special praise. I know from experience that their services on behalf of underprivileged social groups and regions are very effective and often indispensable. Therefore, we have to see these services as an integral part of the European effort to help vulnerable groups and support them adequately at European level.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to point out that with this report we are expressing our conviction that, 20 years after it was formulated, cohesion policy must continue to bring the solidarity of the Union not only to the most disadvantaged regions and countries, but also to the most disadvantaged communities and groups among our citizens.
We must strengthen cohesion policy not only with financial resources, but also with suitable mechanisms and procedures making it possible to track down and address complex, multi-faceted social and economic disparities at local level.
The challenges faced by our regions today are such that they do not allow us to leave the problems of poverty and social and territorial exclusion unresolved. Coordinated action is needed at all levels, as is an integrated approach, with resources and policies working together to deal with the problems.
(PL) Mr President, at present, economic growth is concentrated around capital cities and large urban areas. Other areas, including rural areas, develop much more slowly, and this means that they are much more susceptible to problems. The objective of cohesion policy should be to help these areas and to support territorial cohesion.
For this it is essential to improve infrastructure, to increase the attractiveness of these areas to investors, to maintain public services and to improve housing and quality of life. What is very important for the development of rural areas is to create communications infrastructure; primarily this means roads, and also sewage treatment plants, as these create the necessary conditions for flows of investment and the creation of new jobs, which makes it possible for people to remain in these areas and to live decently.
To date, the Common Agricultural Policy has focused principally on food quality, food safety and competitiveness, but it has been less involved in rural development outside of the area of agriculture. It is vital to have better coordination between cohesion policy, rural development policy and employment policy.
(PL) Mr President, point N of the report is right to point out that poverty and exclusion have a strong territorial character. Taking into account the principle of solidarity, which is generally respected in the European Union, together with the content of point N, I would like the allocation of resources from European funds to support the integration of economically disadvantaged areas.
Unfortunately, this year, this principle has been breached in my own country. Funds allocated to infrastructure improvements and other aid funds are being directed mostly to wealthier areas that are already well developed. This is often a consequence of better preparation by the persons who apply for these funds. I hope that the document we have been considering will help to eliminate these irregularities throughout the European Union.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think this was a good discussion and I would like to thank all those who contributed to the debate, which showed that the integrated policy approach is the best way to address effectively the problem of different vulnerable communities and groups. The link between cohesion policy and rural development policy seems particularly important here.
I also share Members' concern that, in cases where there is a territorial concentration of problems related to vulnerable groups, a territorial approach to policy is justified. Social inclusion should not be dissociated from territorial cohesion.
I also appreciate Members' emphasis on intra-regional disparities. As many Members have pointed out, developing good-quality, reliable intra-regional statistics would be of much help in this context. As I said in my introductory remarks, the Commission intends to invest further in developing such a database. We are now building a rural audit in the same way as we did an urban audit in the past. Good cooperation with Member States on this issue will be essential and I count very much on Parliament's support in this context.
rapporteur. - (HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to thank Commissioner Hübner, not only for her response to this report and to the debate, but also for the ongoing work aimed at making this policy better and more effective. I appreciate her efforts enormously and thank her also for her frankness concerning my report.
I would like to respond to a number of questions that have been raised. First, I think that if we take the problem seriously, then we should do as we did when we took seriously the need for the Lisbon process and the importance of ensuring implementation of the Lisbon process within cohesion policy, which led to the introduction of a system of earmarking cohesion policy funds in order to support the Lisbon process. In the same way, we can take action to combat the territorial concentration of poverty, if we want to. If we decide to.
I would also like to say to the PPE-DE Group, above all to Mr van Nistelrooij, that if we delete point 17, the report would state that we agree that there are micro-regions that are unable to avail themselves of the opportunities we provide for them. We agree that these are micro-regions, but why would we want to delete from the report the very point in which we urge the Commission to examine whether it might therefore be more effective to provide cohesion assistance to these micro-regions at micro-regional level? I still do not understand why we would need to do this.
I would like to say to Mrs Petre that I consider this to be a regional policy report. A regional policy report is not the place for a discussion on ethnic groups, and I do not understand why we should be discussing ethnic groups in any case. In the case of Romania, if we were to look at the matter from an ethnic perspective, which groups would she want me to include in the report? The Roma, who live in very poor circumstances in certain areas? The Csangos, who also live in dire circumstances in one particular area? Or the Romanians of the highland regions? We cannot decide on this basis; we need complex indicators, a complex approach and integrated implementation. Thank you for your attention.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
I would like to welcome this report by Mr. Harangozó on the impact of the cohesion policy on the integration of vulnerable communities and groups. There is a growing voice calling for account to be taken of the difficult prospects facing districts or areas whose population has been on the periphery of decision-making and of mainstream economic development.
From my own constituency I know the difficulties facing not only disadvantaged urban areas, but also peripheral areas in the border counties of Ireland. These rural areas frequently face difficulties in securing investment in business or infrastructure. The ending of the "rural exodus” mentioned in this report should be a priority for politicians.
The role of those farming on small- and medium-sized farms in sustaining rural communities is correctly spelt out by Mr. Harangozó. Rural communities should not be demoted in the cohesion policy and a greater interlink between rural development and regional development in fighting social exclusion must be implemented.
Remoteness from communication and transport networks is a practical problem which must be tackled.
in writing. - (PL) Cohesion policy, on which about 33% of the EU budget is spent, is of vital importance to all EU countries. Poland is pleased to participate in any actions relating to the full economic integration of society in Europe and to minimise disparities at the micro-regional level. I believe that the measures taken under the cohesion policy are fundamental to promoting sustainable development and eliminating unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, which constitute grave social and economic problems in Europe. Cooperation between all European countries and the exchange of experiences are of particular importance in this regard.
The problems that are slowing down the EU's sustainable development, including low incomes, poor infrastructure and low social mobility, relate principally to rural areas. The situation is aggravated by the growing exodus of people from the countryside and the increased social exclusion in these areas. In addition, among the problems faced by European cohesion policy at the beginning of the 21st century, are issues that are external in character, such as, for example, the growing development differences between the European Union and the USA. In the years 1995-2005 productivity growth in Europe was much lower than in the United States or in Japan. This has a significant effect on reducing the competitiveness of the European market.
I would like to thank Mr Harangozó for drawing these issues to our attention.
in writing. - (HU) In the interests of stimulating employment, growth and competitiveness, the European Union must use the enterprise and labour potential at its disposal to the fullest possible extent. In view of the fact that most of the nearly 10 million Roma living in Europe are affected by structural and/or absolute unemployment or participate in the grey or black economy, integration of Roma people could have a decisive impact on the outcome of the Lisbon Agenda and cohesion policy. The report notes that cohesion policy has helped the poorest regions to close the gap in their economic and social development. Much more is needed, however, both in quantitative and in qualitative terms. The European Commission and Member States must work towards ensuring the coordination and complementarity of the available financial resources; European Union financial instruments, meanwhile, and primarily the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund, must be deployed to support a large number of individual programmes, from providing micro-credits to businesses to investing in infrastructure development. To ensure that these programmes are successful and that the funds reach their intended target, it will be vital to identify and eradicate obstacles of both a general and a specific nature. Lagging regions that are battling with complex problems are unable to raise the counterpart funds necessary in order to obtain the Community assistance to which they are legally entitled. In the case of Roma people, meanwhile, the disadvantages they face as a result of a low educational level and generations of unemployment are multiplied several times over.
I thank the Rapporteur for the spirit of cooperation in drafting this report. In Europe, one out of six people lives below the poverty threshold, a figure that does not include the statistics in Romania and Bulgaria.
Although in most Member States the difference between women and men, as regards poverty, is increasingly shrinking and the average difference is 2% as regards poverty and persistent poverty, I would like to draw attention to the reality in the new Member States. In Romania and Bulgaria, the number of women at risk of becoming victims of poverty is more than ten percent higher than the number of men. Women are also much more exposed to social exclusion.
We should not ignore the fact that the ideas of solidarity, social justice, and eradication of poverty are challenges regarding not only the countries in the European Union, but also its involvement on the world economic and political scene.
Therefore, I would like to welcome the inclusion into the final text of the matter regarding the difference between men and women, in a more general article. I also consider important the correlation of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion with the Millennium Development Goals and, in particular, the International Day for the Eradication Poverty.


SWIFT (debate)
The next item is the debate on the Council statement on SWIFT.
Mr President, this is a Council statement on a programme which is an agreement between the European Union and the United States, as you know, for tracking the financing of terrorism and, therefore, with the aim of exchanging and passing on financial data, which I believe everyone agrees upon. This agreement has been in place for the last few months. It has worked well and gives continuity to the flow of information destined for the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme.
This agreement formally expires on 31 January. Therefore, during the previous term of the Swedish Presidency, the Council thought about the need to sign an agreement to enable the continuation of that Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme. For this reason, on 30 November 2009, the Council adopted a Decision on the signing of that agreement, the TFTP (Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme).
It is a provisional agreement. It is therefore valid for a short period, which, in principal, expires on 31 October 2010. Therefore, the provisional agreement which, as I have said, the Council agreed last year, will in any case will become invalid, unless this European Parliament takes a prior decision, in 2010.
This is the present situation. There has been no communication between then and now on the part of the Commission about the content of that agreement, which is still not known by the European Parliament, but I can tell you now that it will be produced in the next week, on 25 January. It will be known to the European Parliament on 25 January. That agreement will arrive in this Chamber, properly translated and will be passed on in order for it to obtain the approval of the European Parliament.
This has not been done before for the following reason, given to us by the Commission: the Commission has not finished the relevant translations and, therefore, the Council has not received them from the Commission. As I have just told you, these different language versions are still being finished, and as you know, the Council can only pass that document, that agreement, to Parliament, when the different language versions are available, which the Commission has in hand. This is what will be produced on 25 January.
Furthermore, for the future and with a view to an agreement, not provisional, but definitive, the Commission intends to make recommendations in that regard for the formation of a long-term agreement, not an agreement which finishes in October of next year, such as the one we are talking about, but one for the long term. This long-term agreement must be negotiated and entered into according to new legal bases, as provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, in which the European Parliament has full involvement. The European Parliament already has full involvement in those agreements, and that is how it will be for the forthcoming agreement, upon which the Commission has not yet made any recommendations.
To finish, I want to say that this is a matter of extreme importance. This is a procedure, a programme to combat terrorism. The Detroit incident has shown that there is present danger, that the threat persists and, therefore, the Member States must not allow that continuing flow of financial data to the TFTP to be abandoned. Judge Bruguière explained this in his in camera intervention filmed before this Parliament in November. He said that, in his opinion, several Member States had been able to benefit and take advantage of the information which was provided to the United States to uncover and avoid terrorist activities.
This led the Council, during the previous Swedish Presidency, to make a provisional application for a new agreement, to avoid the expiry of the current one on 31 January and, therefore, the cancellation of any possible flow of information. It was the only option that the Council had to do so and, of course, yes, Parliament's position on obtaining information is understandable. This has not been produced, as I have told you, due to the European Commission's delay in producing the relevant translations.
Mr President, Mr López Garrido, ladies and gentlemen, this whole debate was, of course, initially coloured by the frustration and irritation that many people in the European Parliament felt because we had the impression that, once again, things were being rushed through in the Council before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. For that reason, I am now thankful that the Council has realised that it is good to consult Parliament, to now apply the new Treaty of Lisbon in the ratification process and also to give us the opportunity to assess whether this agreement is to be applied or not.
In this legislative process, if we now start it, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) will apply clear decision-making criteria. There are two sides to the coin. On one side, we as the PPE Group hold the clear principle that for European data - wherever this is stored - European data protection standards should apply. We hold the principle that we want a right of appeal for people who feel they have been unfairly treated in being subjected to data checks. We hold the basic principle that data should be passed on only in individual cases and only if the person is suspected of something, not simply as a general rule. These are things that we regard as important.
On the other side of the coin, there is the fact that we, of course, want cooperation with the United States. We want to cooperate with our partners in the fight against terror. We do not want a situation in which individual states - if agreements expire - are put under particular pressure, like Belgium for example, because then states might start to operate on a bilateral basis. Careful consideration is also needed here. As the PPE Group, we will give consideration to this when the legislative proposal is presented.
I would ask the Council and the Commission once again not to play for time, but to send the text now so that we can deal with it. As Parliament, we are capable of working quickly and we will be able to deal with this quickly. Then it will be up to the ministers - and just to make this very clear: the interior ministers - to convince Parliament that these methods that are now being proposed in this agreement really are necessary for the fight against terror.
We are open to this process, but the task of convincing us is still to be done by the executive, in other words the ministers.
Mr President, this is a serious law-making process that we are beginning now with the Treaty of Lisbon.
Mr López Garrido, if you are telling us that translations or the lack of translations in such a sensitive area is causing delays that we will just have to accept, then, with the greatest respect, I have to say that that is merely an excuse intended to protect yourself and pacify us here a little. However, we cannot take that seriously. I will simply take note of it now and then overlook it.
The essence of the matter is something else entirely: the lack of involvement of the European Parliament. In the case of international agreements of such far-reaching importance, that is simply impermissible. We want Parliament to be genuinely involved from day one in the implementation of this agreement. Why is that? Mr Buzek, the President of this House, worded it very precisely in his letter, saying that the SWIFT agreement provides for far-reaching infringements of citizens' fundamental freedoms, which are constitutionally guaranteed in most Member States and are also guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
However, if there are to be executive measures on the basis of such an agreement that provide for infringements of citizens' fundamental freedoms, the legal protection of citizens against such infringements must be absolutely guaranteed. That means that data protection must be guaranteed in every respect, the deletion of data after a certain, reasonable period must be guaranteed and appeal facilities must be precisely set out for citizens in the event of the violation of their fundamental rights. One of the constituent elements of the principle of the rule of law is that citizens are able to protect themselves against arbitrary treatment on the part of the State.
The European Union cannot invalidate this legal tradition, which is enshrined in the systems of 27 States, by referring to unavailable translations. If we are serious about wanting to develop the rule of law at European level, we must also transfer to the European level the model of the necessity of intervention on the grounds of security but also the legitimate protection of citizens.
The Council must therefore explain to us where the added value of the SWIFT agreement is if it is now - as the Council desires - provisionally to enter into force. I am not going to talk about the data breaches from the numerous security services in the United States. Someone stuffs some explosives into their underwear and flies over the Atlantic. That is what the intensive security work carried out by the American secret services has so far achieved. That cannot be what it is dependent on, though.
I am wondering why we have to apply this fast-tracked procedure when there has been an agreement in place between the EU and the United States since 1 February on provisional legal assistance, Article 4 of which describes precisely how bank data is to be passed on where there are justified grounds for suspicion. This means that the entry into force of the SWIFT agreement would not provide any added value in terms of protection.
Therefore, this undue haste, - or a 'pig's gallop', as we would call it in German - this pressure to speed things up, is incomprehensible and so our unanimous request to the Council must be put very precisely: send us the relevant documents! We will debate this matter and conclude the parliamentary procedure with the necessary speed because we want security, but not only for the security bodies; we want security for the citizens who are supposed to be protected by these security bodies, too. I believe that is the purpose of this agreement, but in that case, we also want it to be enacted as an appropriate law.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let us start with the good news: the Spanish Presidency has announced that the document is due to be submitted on Monday 25 January, in other words, next Monday - I have made a note. This therefore means that we now have one week to discuss it in Parliament; that is the reality.
My request, Mr President - I have already announced this, and I hope that I will have the support of the other groups - is that a decision be taken, at the Conference of Presidents, to hold both a committee meeting and a part-session to examine this interim agreement, because it would be pointless to allow it to enter into force on 1 February without Parliament having discussed it first.
There are therefore two options, Mr Zapatero: yes or no. I can tell you that obtaining a 'yes' will depend on a range of conditions; it is important to know that, and we must have an answer on this before 25 January. No response to the conditions laid down by Parliament has been received.
These conditions are as follows: firstly, that Parliament be kept fully informed and receive all the necessary information; secondly, that Parliament be involved in the negotiations on the definitive agreement; and, thirdly, there are the specific conditions, nine in total, set out by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in its resolution - which has been approved by Parliament - relating to the actual content of the agreement.
Our request to you is very simple: you must not only send us the interim agreement on 25 January; you must also provide your response to Parliament's three requests. If your response to our three requests is positive, our approval of the agreement might then be a possibility. If it is not positive, I think that the vote is likely to be negative - that is the opinion of my group, in any case.
I have to point out that a negative vote will mean that the interim agreement will not enter into force on 1 February. This is the current situation, and thus tomorrow, I will, in any case, ask the Conference of Presidents both to convene an appropriate committee on the issue and to hold a part-session to discuss this interim agreement.
Mr President, all of Parliament's frustration is now raining down on the Spanish Presidency, which has only just taken up office. Accept it on behalf of the Council as a whole, but I still consider you, yourselves, to be involved in this. I am annoyed that there are no representatives of the Commission in seats 21 and 22 because, if I understand it correctly, the Commission would have had a duty to expedite this whole matter once Parliament had been asked to set the approval procedure in motion. However, the Commission is avoiding its responsibilities and has stayed away from the debate.
I do not want to repeat what my fellow Members have said, but I would like to say that I think it would be extremely dangerous for the Council to have this provisional SWIFT agreement enter into force without Parliament having first voted on what you intend to present to us. I consider the procedure - if you continue to push this through by 1 February at breakneck speed, or at a pig's gallop, as Mr Schulz quite rightly described the whole procedure - not only to be a provocation of Parliament, but also a violation of the treaties, a violation of the Treaty of Lisbon, after it has only just entered into force, and that is irresponsible.
In matters of urgency, you have every possibility of exchanging vital information by means of bilateral legal agreements with the US and with any other country in the world with whom such agreements exist. So there is no hurry.
I would like to emphasise once again that the citizens of the EU are watching with interest to see how we respond to the highly acclaimed Treaty of Lisbon. If we do not, at this point, ensure parliamentary control, if we accept this breach of national data protection laws and contravene the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was so often cited in the debate about the Treaty of Lisbon, it will, I believe, be a kind of kamikaze action and completely unjustifiable. However, Mr López Garrido, you share the responsibility for this with the Commission.
I would like to ask you one more thing. I have just been informed by text message that some language versions of the SWIFT agreement have already been published. Please could you tell us which language versions have been published in the Official Journal, when this was done and why these versions have not yet been made available to Parliament.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, recent events have once again reminded us all how important it is that we share information in order to ensure the security of EU citizens. SWIFT has been a valuable tool in achieving this. Luckily, having met with US Government officials, particularly Mr David Cohen, the Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing in the US Treasury Department, recently in Washington, I was reassured by the multi-layered control systems and safeguards and independent oversight which I hope will lead to the implementation of this new agreement being beyond reproach.
Where I must express grave concern, as others have done, is in the Council's substandard consultation with Parliament, and alleged Commission delays. It is essential that Parliament and the elected representatives of this House are frequently and properly informed, and parliamentary consent must not be a retrospective tool. For the Council to treat it as such undermines the values and democratic principles that lie at the heart of this Chamber and this Parliament. I do hope that the Council, and indeed the Presidency, will take careful note of these remarks.
Mr President, this House has been treated in an insulting and almost humiliating way throughout this whole process. To tell us that we have to wait for the language versions is unacceptable when we know that there are several versions circulating in the press, following leaks of information.
Nevertheless, we were presented with an outline of the agreement on a Friday in Brussels, when the MEPs had gone to Strasbourg. Only one MEP was present in Brussels. That MEP happened to be me.
The repeated references to the Bruguière Report, a secret report, are also unacceptable. This is hardly convincing, as anyone who has read the Bruguière Report knows that it contains almost no empirical data.
It is unacceptable to say that this is a provisional report, when the data collected over the next nine months will be in the hands of the US administration within five years, and it might be a Sarah Palin administration, rather than the Obama administration. How can a European citizen feel safe? You clearly give us no alternative but to reject this agreement, and you are not making our life any easier.
In rejecting it, however, we are doing the Commission a favour, as there are two new commissioners, Mrs Malmström and Mrs Reding, who we know will certainly be able to negotiate the best possible agreement from scratch, and we are sure that they are willing to do so.
(DE) Mr President, very many measures have been adopted under the guise of combating terrorism in recent years, including by the Council. However, very many of these measures are not reasonably proportionate to the actual threat posed by terrorism. On the contrary, they have resulted in unacceptable restrictions of citizens rights. The systematic exchange of data, unrelated to any grounds for suspicion, provided for in the SWIFT agreement is clearly no exception to this. Even the German Federal Criminal Police Office, which is not really known as a data protection group, had to admit the disproportionate nature of this measure. We must put a stop to these permanent restrictions of citizens' rights and we must not approve the provisional agreement.
With regard to the Council's methods, I would once again like to say quite clearly that the US examined and stored the data of SWIFT users without any form of restriction at all. However, the Council did not sanction this procedure, it legalised it! I would, of course, also like to urge the Council to pass on all of the information relating to this matter to the European Parliament.
There was a particular intervention, I think it was Mrs Harms, referring to the possible publication of one of the language versions. Obviously, I do not have that information. I will check it out and let you know the situation in writing. What I have told you is that on 25 January, the agreement which will come into force provisionally on 1 February will be in the hands of the European Parliament. In accordance with European law, in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty of Lisbon and in accordance with the Vienna Convention, signed agreements can provisionally come into force. Therefore, it is valid.
For the European Union and, of course, for the Council, it is important that this agreement remains in force. It is important that these agreements on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme remain in force. We feel that it is a positive step, that it serves the struggle against terrorism, and that it involves collaboration with the United States, which is a trustworthy country, a partner country, a neighbour, which has the same purpose as ourselves: the fight against terrorism. This has nothing to do with the delay in receiving the language versions, it is definitely not an excuse, Mr Schulz. It is not a matter of gaining time, Mr Weber.
As you know, a few weeks ago, or months even, the Swedish Presidency, the Council, suggested sending this version in a single language to Parliament, from the Council, and the Commission realised that this was not possible, that it had to be the actual Commission which would produce the language versions and send them all on. The Council had good intentions on the part of the Swedish Presidency, but it was not possible either legally or technically. That is the reason it has arrived now. I understand that the European Parliament would have liked to have this version earlier. I agree absolutely. If I had been an MEP, I would think exactly the same and would have wanted to have these versions earlier. It did not happen that way for the reason I told you. It has nothing to do with gaining time, or hiding anything, nor is it an excuse. Absolutely not.
I think this is an agreement where the European Parliament will have the full capacity to take part, because the Lisbon Treaty has come into force and we have - I think a great majority of us - adopted that treaty, and that will give Parliament the capacity to take part in a sovereign way. Parliament will be able to, if it wishes, cut short the validity of this provisional agreement. Parliament will take part in the negotiation of the subsequent long-term agreement. The EP, together with the Council, of course, will have all the authority to influence the SWIFT Agreement which we believe is very important, which deserves to be debated in this Parliament, thoroughly, seriously and without haste or pressure, to use an expression that you, yourselves, have already used.
What is more, we are absolutely agreed, Mr Verhofstadt and other speakers, that here it is necessary to respect people's fundamental rights, the right to privacy and European legislation on data protection. Moreover, now we have another instrument to guarantee these rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which has just come into force because it is linked to the Lisbon Treaty, and that is fully in force. One of the rights that it guarantees is the right to privacy and data protection. Therefore, we have all the conditions to make a good agreement.
As for Mr Verhofstadt's proposal to send a letter or to immediately reach a Council position on the conditions established by Parliament, I believe that the best thing is that when Parliament has that document, we will be at your disposal to debate it in every sense, with all those conditions and, therefore, to come to a serious, rigorous and unpressured agreement in this respect.
Yes, of course, for the moment, we think it is vital to get this provisional agreement in force and, in any case, Parliament will have all the authority accorded it by the Treaty of Lisbon to ultimately decide whether or not the agreement should go ahead. This will depend on you. It will depend on Parliament as a whole.
The debate is closed. I said earlier that it is not possible to give the floor to others. If there is a request on a point of order, I can give the floor. Please proceed.
Mr President, I would just like to understand one thing: if only one or a few language versions are available, then I would like to know the language skills of the Members of the Commission and the Council who signed the agreement and who decided on it on 30 November - so it must be available.
That was not a point of order, but we allowed it because Mrs in 't Veld was so polite in her request to take the floor. Please proceed, Minister.
I repeat what I said. I will check the information given to me by Mrs Harms, I think it was, regarding the document. I am not sure because I do not have it with me, of course, and I will let her know what happened on this matter.
In any case, I repeat, on 25 January, you will have the agreement and we will be able to discuss it as much as you like. The Spanish Presidency, the government and the Council are at your disposal to talk for as long as you like, in depth, about this agreement whose future entry into force will depend on the European Parliament.
One exception soon becomes many, and I cannot deny Mr Schulz the floor. Please proceed, Mr Schulz.
(DE) Mr President, I apologise for taking the floor once again. It is a rare event in my life, but we are not at a fun fair here. Mr López Garrido, the agreement was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 January. You are not responsible for that, but if you now say to us 'I need first to find out which language versions are available' then I have to say again that this is not a recreational event for the mutual enjoyment of MEPs and ministers. This is a legislative chamber in which serious work is required!
I would now like to say something to you - not to the Spanish Presidency, but to the Council - and that is that the way in which the Council has dealt with these matters shows that it has no regard for Parliament whatsoever. The time has now come for us to say to the Council that these little games are finished. There is a serious legislative procedure - in Europe, this, of course, involves all documents and all dossiers being available in all languages at the start of the procedure and does not mean that we have to go in search of the documents with a divining rod after the procedure has supposedly finished. This is not a sound procedure. I ask you now to tell us which language versions were available when the agreement was published in the Official Journal on 13 January. That is something that I am now formally requesting to know on behalf of our group.
Please, ladies and gentlemen, after Mr Schulz has spoken, we will give the floor to the Minister for the final response and we will close the debate.
We are going to inform Parliament on everything it has requested: on the language versions, on which ones are available and so on. Above all, we will do so thoroughly and seriously.
I do not believe that the Council has treated the European Parliament in a humiliating manner, nor has it in any way denied Parliament information. I am referring to the Swedish Presidency which, at the time, did what it could in order to be able to submit the agreement, but that was not legally possible because some of the language versions had still not been translated. Now that the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force, the European Parliament will be able to discuss this matter fully, and the Council is ready to provide Parliament with all the information it requires and to establish a dialogue on the matter.
I do not believe that this constitutes treating the European Parliament badly and, therefore, I do not share the sentiments expressed by Mr Schulz on the issue. The facts will show this. A full text will be made available to the European Parliament and Parliament will be able to debate it with the Council for as long and in as much depth as it likes, and the European Parliament will have the final say on the matter.
It is as simple as that. Therefore, I believe there is no need to be concerned that the Council is withholding information on any subject whatsoever. The Council believes wholly in the need to respect the Union's fundamental rights and it believes wholly in the need to respect Parliament, which is the representative of the people of Europe.
The debate is closed. I will not give the floor to anyone else on this matter.
Written statements (Rule 149)
What is being referred to as the SWIFT agreement (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) governs the passing on of data from the global bank network. On a daily basis, 8 000 monetary institutions from 200 countries communicate with each other via the channels of the society, which is based in Belgium, with data centres in the Netherlands and the US. According to the Commission, requests for data can only relate to international transfers and use of the service is strictly limited to terrorism investigations by the secret services. However, both high-ranking politicians and criminal experts doubt that, in the US, the data would be used solely for combating terrorist activities. Data abuse, violations of civil rights and the passing on of data to third parties are all very real dangers that could result from the SWIFT agreement. As Members of the European Parliament, we absolutely must not allow the entry into force of this agreement and the associated data transfer to the US, and certainly not without the approval of the European Parliament. Provisional entry into force of the agreement pending the debate in the European Parliament in February would constitute a huge violation of the fundamental principle of democracy.


Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure: see minutes


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 25 November 2010.


Formal sitting - Grand Mufti of Syria
Ladies and gentlemen, it is a special honour and pleasure for me today, in this European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, to extend a warm welcome to the European Parliament to His Eminence Sheikh Ahmad Badr El Din El Hassoun, Grand Mufti of Syria.
(Applause)
As I emphasised last week in Ljubljana at the opening ceremony for the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, the European Parliament attaches great importance to this year of dialogue between cultures.
I am firmly convinced, as are many others, that it is both possible and essential for people from different cultures and religions to live together in peace, both within the European Union and in the world at large. Particular importance attaches in this context to our relations with the peoples on the opposite shores of the Mediterranean and in the Middle East. The fact is that the fruits of this dialogue will have a lasting effect on our common future. Together we must build an intellectual and cultural bridge across the Mediterranean, embedded in mutual enrichment and shared values.
We build this bridge when we engage in continuous, honest and open dialogue in which we listen to each other, exchange our opinions frankly and develop mutual understanding.
Tolerance is at the heart of intercultural dialogue. Tolerance does not mean indifference. Tolerance means putting forward our own points of view and hearing and respecting other people's convictions.
Where we find it impossible to accept another person's point of view, it is still necessary to treat such views with respect, to exchange ideas and opinions peacefully and, wherever possible, to pave the way for joint action and thereby defuse tension.
We must stress the things we have in common, including the substance of universal democratic values. Foremost among these are human dignity and the defence of inalienable human rights.
In the course of 2008 and thereafter, the European Parliament will take several opportunities to engage in such talks. Today's visit by the Grand Mufti of Syria represents the first of these opportunities. Ahmad Badr El Din El Hassoun, formerly Mufti of Aleppo, is regarded as an outstanding champion of inter-faith dialogue in a country where the religious communities in all their diversity still live and work together in peace.
This is clearly symbolised by the fact that the Grand Mufti is accompanied on today's visit by high-ranking religious leaders. That was his express wish, and may I make special mention of Bishop Antoine Audo, head of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Syria, and bid him a warm welcome.
Your Eminence, it now gives me great pleasure to invite you to address the European Parliament.
(Applause)
Grand Mufti of Syria. -
(The speaker spoke in Arabic. Below is a transcription of the English interpretation.)
Greetings to you all in the name of our Creator, who created mankind from the same soil and through whose soul we have been able to become alive. The source of energy that comes to us is from the one God, the Creator; we are his creation and, hence, I greet you as brothers on this planet, my brothers in spirit and in mankind.
Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, Honourable Members, I have come to you from a country which I had not chosen to be in, but heaven chose that I be one of its citizens. This land, which we call the 'blessed land', the land of Al-Sham, which includes Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan and Israel, this land which has encompassed all the cultures of heaven: in our land, the Prophet Abraham walked, and the Prophet Moses lived happily there, and in our land Jesus (may God's blessings be upon him) was born, and from our land he was lifted to the heavens. Muhammad, the Prophet, came also from Mecca to our land to be lifted into the heavens. Therefore, I would like you to understand the meaning of that land, which was a source of light and enlightenment without which we would not have been Christians and followers of Abraham and Moses, and we would not have been Muslims and we would not carry the responsibility of conveying the divine message to the world.
Therefore, I thank you wholeheartedly and I thank the President of Parliament, who allowed me to open this cultural debate in a year which is the year of dialogue between cultures.
I say cultures, but really there are no separate cultures, there is but one single culture.
Cultures have had an impact and enriched the culture of mankind, and culture is from our own creation: we created culture. This Parliament was not built by a Christian or by a Jew or by a Muslim, but it was created by man. This is a symbol of culture, of its construction.
We all form one single culture, which is called the culture of mankind. Therefore we, in our region, do not believe in a conflict between cultures at all. It is a single culture in the universe, and it is not multiple. However, different cultures can exist or co-exist.
(Applause)
So, let us look at where there is conflict between cultures. Conflict exists where there is ignorance, terrorism and backwardness, but a cultured person, whatever his religion may be, will hold my hand so that we can build the culture of mankind together. When man reached the moon, the Soviet Agency at the time and NASA were not all Americans or Russians, they were also Europeans, Italians, Germans, French, Belgians and Arabs. They, together, built the civilisation that allowed mankind to reach space.
So let us have a look once again at the terminology or the term 'conflict' between cultures or civilisations. This is dangerous because civilisation cannot be built separately. Those who built the pyramids are our great-grandfathers, and those who built the pyramids in Chile are also among our great-grandfathers and therefore, as I said, civilisation is one.
A second point. Does civilisation have a religion? Or is it a human culture in which religion gives its moral values? There is no Islamic civilisation, or Christian civilisation, or Jewish civilisation. Religion gives civilisation its moral values, but culture is something that we built. God created religion, but we create cultures. This is what we have built, but religion is the work of God. Do not, therefore, limit civilisation because it is the result of our work, whereas religion, as I said, is the work of God.
Who creates civilisation? Mankind - you and I. Who are we, you and I? Are you different from me? No. You are not the other party. The animal might be the other party, but you are my brother or sister, whatever your religion or language, because my mother is your mother, my father is your father, and the land is our mother and Abraham is our father. Therefore, let us create a new generation that believes that 'the other' is the animal. But man, whatever his religion or wherever he comes from, is my brother or sister, and his blood is my blood. His spirit is mine and his ideas are mine and his freedom is my freedom, and his culture is different from my culture. So let us build civilisation together. We do not believe, in our region, in the multiplicity of religions: multiple religions do not exist.
Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad came with one single religion - the worship of God and the dignity of mankind. As for legislation and law, these differ from time to time and from period to period. There can be many legislations, but there cannot be many religions. Therefore, your God and our God are the same and single one and we all worship the same Creator. Hence there cannot be religious conflict. This brings me to say that there is no holy war. I do not believe in holy wars, because a war can never be holy: it is peace that is holy.
(Applause)
So let us teach our children in schools, churches and in religious places and in the mosques that what is really sacred in the universe is man and not the Kaaba or the Masjid al-Aqsa or the Church of the Trinity but mankind - mankind is the most holy and sacred thing in the universe, and this is more important than any other sacred thing.
(Applause)
Why do I say this to you, ladies and gentlemen? Because the Kaaba was created by Abraham, a man, and the Wall of Mecca was built by a Jew, and the Church of the Trinity was built by a Christian. But man - who created man? This is the creation of the Creator, and anybody who destroys the creation of the Creator should not be respected.
Any person who kills an Israeli or Iraqi child will be called upon to respond to his action before God because those children are the creation of God on this planet and we destroyed that creation. Can we bring life back to those persons? If the Kaaba were to be destroyed, our children could build it again and if the Masjid al-Aqsa were to be destroyed, we could reconstruct it. If the Church of Trinity were to be destroyed, the next generation would build it but, believe me, if one man is killed, who can give him back his life?
Hence I greet and commend Europe that invited me to come to this place. So I start with you and call upon you to ensure that the dialogue between civilisations has to be endless and open so that we create states based on a civil basis - not a religious or an ethnic basis because religion is a relation between you and God - but we must live together in this world peacefully. I do not impose my religion on you and you do not impose your religion on me. This is something between us and the Creator.
So, let us build a new generation that believes that the civilisation of mankind is a common work and that the most noble of all is mankind and freedom - after God, of course. If we would like to see peace in the world, let us start from the land of peace: Palestine and Israel. So we can tell people, as the Pope said years ago, rather than building the wall, let us build the bridges of peace, because Palestine is the land of peace. Considering how much it costs to build that wall, we could actually allow Christian, Jewish and Muslim children to attend the same school and to live as brothers and sisters in a school of peace.
(Applause)
Yes, we extended our hands to you in Syria last year. President Bashar-al-Asad extended his hands to the world and said 'I want a true peace'. I will not carry a weapon today but I will always carry the words of peace to stand before the world and say, no more war after today. The victor in war will be a loser if he is temporarily victorious because he killed people, but the real victors are those who become brothers to other people. It is not land that is holy but it is man that is holy. Let us make a holy world once man becomes the holy person.
Therefore, please do not believe the media, because the media on many occasions do not tell the truth. Many of you have visited me in Syria and have come to my mosque, and I went with them to the churches and they saw how we live as one single family, and that we do not believe in simple cohabitation but in living as a family. Whether we are Muslims, Jews or Christians we believe in the one house - the house of life.
I have lived, as you, as a Member of Parliament for 10 years in Syria and I felt, the moment I entered into Parliament, that I did not represent my political party or my group because I was independent; rather, I represented every person who has asked me to represent him or her and I represented every person who has not asked me to represent him or her, because he or she is my brother or sister, and I was a representative of everybody in the country. So, do you represent your countries or political parties or do you represent the human being? Please be representatives for us and your people, because mankind is unique in the universe.
Yes, you have to represent us on the issues of peace and truthfulness and belief. The Islamic world today witnesses war in many of its countries. This world must achieve peace, and it has always wanted peace and, if there are certain crises, that is because of injustice. Christianity came to ensure peace, otherwise we cannot understand what was the mission of the prophets, such as Moses, who called for the achievement of peace. Nobody wanted to kill anybody, and anybody who wants to kill a person would be contradicting his beliefs and religion. Do not use religion for killing; religion is for peace and life.
Yes, this is my message from my country, from a land that was blessed by the heavens and where all the prophets walked and lived in.
Woman is a great person in our land, and she is dignified, whether she is Jewish, Christian or Muslim, although she probably faced injustice because of men. Women participate at all levels of our country and the leaders of my country, including the President, call upon the participation of women in all fields of society.
This city is a title for peace. I saw how it was built and I said that the miracle of the 20th century is Europe. This miracle that witnessed the First World War and the Second World War, and then managed to destroy the Berlin Wall without shedding any blood - not one single drop of blood. All Europe came together, and its people came together in one Parliament. So, could you help us achieve such a parliament - a human parliament, a spiritual one, a universal one? Please help us, because Syria and the whole Islamic world are waiting for you, whether they are Muslims or Christians.
Finally, since Damascus is the Capital of Arab Culture this year and you started the Year of Intercultural Dialogue, I would ask you to agree to holding a meeting for cultures in the Capital of Arab Culture, Damascus, to say that the world is at one and that we are extending our hands to Lebanon, because Lebanon has one people, and we should all help the creation of one Lebanon and one true Palestine, one true Israel, one true Iraq, a land of peace for everyone.
(Sustained applause)
Ladies and gentlemen, your applause shows that this House is at one with me in sincerely thanking the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmad Badr El Din El Hassoun, for his message of opposition to violence, war and terrorism. Human dignity is central to him, and that is the basis for cooperation between cultures. His is a tolerance which says that we have our own point of view, that we are not bound to embrace another's point of view, but we respect it and therefore live together peacefully in this world, recognising human dignity. Thank you, Your Eminence, for your address to us here in the European Parliament.
(Applause)