Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


6. AIDS/HIV in view of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (Vienna July 18-23, 2010) (
- Before the vote:
Mr President, given the importance of this vote in advance of the Vienna Conference, I request a role-call vote on the final vote.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my group opposes this.
(The request was rejected)
(FR) Let us calm down! As Luxembourg nationals speak and write in French and German, before the vote on this very sensitive resolution, may I draw your attention to the fact that there is an enormous difference between the French and German texts of paragraph 17.
In the German version, it states that the Member States and the Commission are invited ...
(DE) to support measures in the field of safe abortions
(FR) ... to support measures for safe abortion. I have been told that this part of the sentence does not feature in either the French text or the English text.
Mr President, if you could clarify whether it is the French text that is authentic, that would definitely help many Members to come to a decision during the vote.
We will correct all the translations so that they are in harmony with the original texts. We will check this. Thank you.
Mr President, given the vote that we have just taken, I wonder if the political party that objected would remove its objection and now allow us to have a roll-call vote on the final vote.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would reiterate our opposition.
(The request was rejected)
- After the vote:
Mr President, I do not want to delay the proceedings, and I am glad to see that Mr Cashman is in such good voice. I think it would be a good thing if we had a free vote across this House on issues of this kind. Then they could determine the true view of Parliament. We have one side that whips the House and only one side that allows a free vote. If we really want to determine the view of Parliament on issues of this kind, there should be a free vote across the House.
(Applause)
Mr President, if someone is named in this House, it is their right to reply. I was named. I therefore want to say to Mr Mitchell and others that, whichever party decides to vote, each of us has our own free vote and the House voted democratically.
(Applause)


13. Extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to third country nationals otherwise excluded (


Damages actions for breach of competition rules (debate)
The next item is the report, by Mr Sánchez Presedo, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Green Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner Kroes, ladies and gentlemen, the existence of economic freedom, the functioning of the internal market and the sustainability of European development are inextricably linked to the competition policy. Since the Treaty of Rome was signed 50 years ago, its importance has continued to grow. Competition is an indicator of European vitality and excellence, a key policy in terms of fulfilling the Lisbon Strategy and achieving the Union's objectives.
Anti-competitive infringements make the game unfair, impact on flows of exchanges amongst Member States and damage confidence in the rules. They reduce the Union's dynamism and results. It is important that we have dissuasive and reactive mechanisms.
Infringements have been dealt with principally by means of public actions of an administrative nature. The centralisation of the application of Article 81(3) - through a priori control by the Commission, toned down by means of the exemption regulations from the 1980s onwards - was a victim of its own success; the demand for more and better competition revealed its economic inefficiency and its legal shortcomings.
The role of private actions was stressed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities when the 2001 Courage v. Crehan judgment recognised that anybody could have recourse to national judicial bodies in order to claim damages resulting from the actions of the infringer.
The modernisation of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of the Council put an end to the Commission's monopoly and recognised a more open system, applicable in a decentralised manner by the administrative authorities making up the network of Community competition authorities and also directly by the national judicial authorities.
The possibility of private actions is nothing exotic, but rather a return to the classic jurisprudence according to which Community law imposes obligations on the States and on private individuals, and has vertical and horizontal effects that require judicial protection. Their use in the Member States - according to a study ordered by the Commission - is extremely diverse and entirely underdeveloped - unlike in the United States, where nine out of every ten application procedures are judicial. The rapporteur takes a positive view of the Commission's publication of a Green Paper to identify the obstacles standing in the way of private actions and to find ways to remove them.
In an advanced system of competition, public action against the impunity of infringer undertakings should be backed with private actions against immunity and indemnity in relation to the damages suffered by the victims of their actions. Facilitating private actions will make the competition rules more effective. The arguments for it include both efficiency and justice. The imposition of fines is insufficient unless accompanied by private actions to prevent the infringer from gaining advantage compared to competitors as a result of the infringement and to compensate the victims of the damages caused. The report takes the view that public and private actions form two pillars with the complementary aim of safeguarding market discipline in the public interest and protecting the private interests of players on that market.
The application of Community competition law by administrative and judicial authorities must not lead to any lack of uniformity in its application. Judgments must not be allowed to vary according to the authority making it. This is a crucial point. The Community acquis and the effectiveness of leniency programmes must be maintained, public and private actions must be coordinated and cooperation amongst all of the competent authorities must be intensified.
The report proposes a Community model in line with the Union's legal culture, which takes account of the Member States' legal traditions. It opposes a slide towards the US model, since it is not in favour of introducing that model's peculiar characteristics, such as judicial bodies consisting of non-professionals, 'class actions', punitive damage payments of three times the damage occasioned, strict requirements on the disclosure of documents and the system of lawyer's fees and litigation costs.
We must compensate for imbalances and ensure that liabilities are met, without violating the principle of equality of arms or artificially stimulating litigiousness. The aim is to encourage the rational use of legal actions and not judicial activism, and above all to promote the amicable and early settlement of disputes.
Community competition is an exclusive competence of the European Union. National administrative and judicial procedures do not alter that and they must not prevent the existence of common guidelines for penalties, in accordance with the principles of better legislation.
I shall end by thanking the rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Doorn, for his valuable cooperation, the shadow rapporteurs for their help and the Members who have tabled amendments for their contributions.
I appreciate the constant and exemplary dialogue maintained with the Commission during the drawing up of the report and I would urge the Commissioner to carry on demonstrating her commitment in the next White Paper.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, Honourable Members, we are here tonight to debate an issue of fundamental importance: rights.
The Court has been clear: the right to damages is necessary to guarantee the effectiveness of Community competition rules. But consumers and business customers do not use their rights. Injuries are left uncompensated, while society and the economy absorb the loss: that is just reality. That is clearly unjust, incompatible with our Community of law and at odds with our shared competitiveness objectives. The European Commission and, I believe, most Members of this House will not tolerate this situation.
Our Green Paper set out the problems. Finding appropriate solutions requires a very careful, measured approach, grounded in European legal traditions and developed through dialogue with stakeholders and, in particular, with Parliament. That is why the Commission will present a White Paper, accompanied by an impact assessment, for further discussion around the New Year.
Mr Sánchez Presedo's report provides a wealth of pertinent input into this process. I congratulate the rapporteur wholeheartedly and thank the shadow rapporteurs and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for all their work. I also thank Mr Doorn and the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs for their contribution. We will give most careful consideration to all Parliament's recommendations in preparing the White Paper.
I am aware that some are concerned that fostering private damage actions might lead to a US-style litigation culture. We will certainly take this into account in drafting the White Paper. But the scales are currently tipped against the victims. Carefully balanced European solutions need to be found. Common solutions that meet the strict tests of proportionality and subsidiarity should only be developed where national rules do not guarantee the right to damages effectively.
I have also heard it said that more private actions will create additional costs for business. We heard similar arguments years ago as regards the 'polluter pays' principle for the environment. The fact is that today cartels and other abuses cause huge but hidden costs. Empirical research shows that international cartels raise prices by over 20%. Recent cartel decisions by the Commission covered synthetic rubber, gas-insulated switch gear and acrylic glass. All these cartels increased input costs for business and harmed European competitiveness. The time has come to introduce the 'competition-infringer pays' principle. Let us not forget that, whilst some industries have to create some pollution to do business, in the competition environment there is no need and no excuse for infringements. Infringers may not like having to repair the damage they cause, but they should simply not break the rules in the first place. It is their choice.
I believe that making sure businesses and consumers do not lose out because of the illegal behaviour of some companies is worth fighting for. I sincerely hope that this week Parliament will send a strong message of support for this objective. We will discuss the detail together later, on the basis of a White Paper that will be balanced and measured and subject to the vigorous and very valuable scrutiny of this House.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (NL) Mr President, I think it is now the third time that I am addressing this House on the topic of competition law around midnight. I am not sure what the reason for this could be, but it is uncanny that it should evidently be regarded as, in some sense, a nocturnal topic.
As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, I should like to make a few observations. The fundamental question is as to whether citizens and businesses that have sustained damage as a result of infringements of cartel law be entitled to damages I think they should, and so does the Committee on Legal Affairs. We think that in such cases, there should be a right to damages in the Member States, which should provide for procedures of this kind, although how they organise them is up to them. In some Member States, the government will need to establish first that an infringement has taken place. In other Member States, this will be done differently, but everything in accordance with the Member States' procedures. After all, there is also the question of whether procedures of this kind can be imposed from Brussels on Member States in the first place. You may be able to persuade them that these need to be introduced, but whether they can be imposed is, to our mind, a different matter altogether. This is not, after all, about cartel law, but civil law, which, like criminal law, is a preserve of Member States, something in which the European Union cannot intervene. This is why we have serious doubts as to the possible legal basis that should underlie European legal measures in order to introduce procedures of this kind.
The same applies, in fact, to all those other questions and observations in the Green Paper that pertain to the furnishing of proof, for example the hiring of experts or group activities. These are all examples that fall within the scope of national civil law, in respect of which the European Union cannot prescribe any legislation. These are the principal observations that we in the Committee on Legal Affairs have made.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Commissioner indicated during her address that she was looking for Parliament to give a strong measure of support to action in this area. I want to make it clear, on behalf of my group, that we welcome the publication of the Green Paper and we are looking forward to the publication of the White Paper. We think that people's rights in this area are not properly applied and, certainly, we want to ensure that more is done than is currently being done.
However, as the Commissioner herself has indicated, that is going to require a delicate balance, not least for the reasons that Mr Doorn has outlined, and because of the hearing organised by Mr Sánchez Presedo, in which we devoted half a day to considering these difficult issues.
For my own part, I am very committed to regarding progress in this area as an integral part of the whole of the Commission's agenda in terms of modernisation of competition policy, so let nobody be in any doubt about our encouragement of further action by the Commission.
However, as the Commissioner has made clear, both within Member State governments and amongst the business community, there is real concern to avoid the experiences of the United States. It is not good enough just to say 'we are not going to do what the United States did', especially when, it must be said, after giving a considerable amount of detailed consideration to the issue, Mr Sánchez Presedo's report goes into seeking to resolve, as it were, all these difficulties by changing the burden of proof, introducing punitive damages - at least in relation to cartels - and cost-free litigation, confusing EU and national competences, changing the rules in relation to disclosure, and cutting out of the assessment of the costs of this litigation any principles in relation to subsidiarity, proportionality or whether there is a proper legal base.
Therefore, when people ask why we are concerned about this report, it is because it has become a Christmas tree with too many bells hanging on it. We are in favour of opening the door, we are certainly not in favour of encouraging a process which may lead us down the US route, against the wishes of the Commission and against the wishes of all of those who have worked on this report.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament is happy to embrace the initiative taken by the Commissioner in this Green Paper. This is the very reason why we would argue that it is wise not to specify at this stage that the scope of a number of points should not be looked into further. We want the Commission to be given ample opportunity to examine a number of things properly and to follow them up with impact assessments to study their effects. After all, I can imagine that with regard to the Green Paper, we too will reach the conclusion that that is not the most obvious route to take and that indeed, a number of things need not be further elaborated or fleshed out; we do not wish to take a decision on this at this moment though. This is why we are calling on the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats to reconsider a number of those points or possibly to provide a formula which leaves slightly more room for what the conclusion should be, so as to in any event give the Commission the opportunity to look into this further. We will then also look at our own amendments in a critical light. I would hereby like to invite you to take another closer look at this tomorrow.
As for me, I should also like to address this point from a Dutch angle as we in the Netherlands are having a heated debate on this very topic at the moment; finally, people are experiencing what competition policy at European level means and how we fight these cartels, because in a recent Dutch case, the Commissioner has charged high fines to beer brewers. This is, of course, a topic on which the whole of the Netherlands assumes to be an authority. It was a very telling example, because this beer cartel involved price agreements among beer brewers, who also have enormous influence on the hotel and catering industry and as a result of which people, the eventual customers, paid over the odds for their beers, something which was already subject of discussion in the Netherlands ever since the introduction of the euro. This example, though, demonstrated once again that the fines that are then levied are first fed to the European Commission before they are channelled back to the Member States, and do not end up directly with these consumers. Hotel and catering entrepreneurs are likely to take legal action against these beer brewers to see if they can recover any of the damage, but this is of no use to the consumer, the end user. In that sense, it is very interesting as an example to see how headway can be made; after all, the eventual end user is being conned by cartels of this kind. This example also proves my point, and so I should like to call on this House to keep the door open and to find out how we can let the consumer, the end user, benefit more from this cartel policy.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, when we first discussed the Commission's Green Paper, I felt like a kind of latter-day Cassandra forecasting all kinds of woes. Perhaps I fared better than Cassandra in that you, Commissioner, and the rapporteur took some of my concerns seriously - I hesitate to call them 'predictions'. My concerns, though perhaps only gently - maybe too gently for some of my colleagues - are embedded in the report that we are debating. So I can support giving you scope to explore the options of both follow-on actions and stand-alone actions. I can share a vision of mutual recognition of decisions, but I make it clear that that lies in the future, not right now.
My main remaining reservations concern the question of how much of a carrot has to be offered to get the system to take off, particularly for stand-alone actions. And you may note the report on that subject that has just come out in the UK. If the carrot is too large, whether for the consumer, the lawyers or competing companies, I fear that, however we craft our rules, we are at risk of being pushed towards some of the worst aspects of damages actions that we hear about from the United States. I say 'pushed' because that is how it happens. Nobody goes there voluntarily. With the whole of the EU as the territory for the victor, a very fine balance has to be struck.
Another of my priorities would be to ensure that actions are well founded and that we do not end up with the kind of blackmail actions that happen in the United States. I agree it will be difficult to get it right and account will have to be taken of national differences in legal practice and tradition, but if we can succeed it will be a very useful tool and well worth having. I look forward to the White Paper too, but I warn you that I may not have put my Cassandra's robes away yet.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, you have a difficult task ahead of you because I can see that opinions will differ greatly on both sides. On the one side, you will have the support of a number of consumer associations, which will welcome your proposal. On the other side, you will have many interest groups, which will denounce the risks of such an approach in the field of competition law.
Nevertheless, since you are proposing an initiative in an area of yours relating to anti-trust, you are operating at a level at which the Commission's inaction will no doubt be challenged less than it would elsewhere. I am thinking in particular of the way in which the Commission assesses a given merger proposal.
In the area of anti-trust, there is, in a way, more scope for a broader agreement between the Member States and the public players. The basic idea, then, is to supplement public action with private action. We are still only at the preliminary stage, and we can clearly see that the path will be full of pitfalls. There are those, like Mr Doorn, who imagine that the Commission does not have to give its opinion on initiatives in this area, because all of that is meant to come under the civil law of the Member States. Then, there are those - I believe that all of this evening's speakers have voiced opinions along these lines - who are worried about the potential for such an initiative to be abused and, when we think about abuses in this area, everyone has in mind the abuse of the US system, where the victims whom the defence claims to help are in reality - if I dare say so - the cash cow of the legal professions. Clearly, no one in this Chamber wants to see European competition law engage in such a scheme.
You have announced to us a White Paper, and you have announced to us an impact study: once again, we shall examine your proposals with the aim of helping you, with the desire to make competition law better able, by way of these proposals, to address Europeans' concerns and to fulfil what they might normally expect from a just application of competition law.
Once again, however - and I am not the first person this evening to have said this - anything that is liable to involve us in an abuse of procedures that helps put money into professions which, incidentally, find many other ways of guaranteeing turnover, would not have our support. It is in this spirit of openness and with the concern, often demonstrated in this Chamber, to protect consumers' rights, that we shall support and examine your proposals.
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her initiative, and the rapporteur for his report. I want to concentrate on possible consumer actions, so-called collective or representative actions. These should not be the big bogeyman for business that they are often portrayed as. If we want informed and responsible consumers who do not need over-nannying by the state, then the companion of that approach of treating consumers like grown-ups is that we must allow them to take action together to get redress. After all, why should the state alone be the enforcer in anti-competitive matters? It is the consumer who loses as a result of anti-competitive behaviour, but often gets no redress or compensation.
There is nothing astounding in proposing this: the right to take action is already acknowledged by the ECJ. What we have to do is to facilitate this, make justice accessible to those who lose and ensure that compensation is distributed in an equitable manner, not just to the privileged few.
This has to be the complementary approach to having informed consumers, giving them real power through increasing justice and redress. Indeed, this should assist the better functioning of our internal market. Consumers are often the best judges of what is anti-competitive. We should have no fears about harnessing this force for the general good.
Everyone is absolutely clear that we do not want US-style class actions, so now is our unique opportunity to design something European which respects European values of our society and justice.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in van Gend [amp] Loos, the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament's vote on the report. So far, so good.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear - and I repeat - US-style opt-out class actions are not on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.


Statements by the President
It was with great satisfaction that I received the news concerning the release from house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the Burmese opposition. Mrs Suu Kyi was one of the first winners of the Sakharov Prize, awarded by the European Parliament since 1988. However, she was unable to collect it in person 20 years ago. I would like to inform you that I have already sent Mrs Suu Kyi an invitation to visit the European Parliament and to address one of our plenary sessions.
25 November is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, as instituted by the UN 11 years ago. Every day, all over the world, many women are victims of rape, humiliation and domestic violence. A particular atrocity practised in many areas of the world is the circumcision of young women. It is estimated that 8 000 girls fall victim to this every day. To show solidarity with the campaign to stop this barbaric ritual, I would encourage you all to wear a rose petal today to symbolise our opposition to this practice. I would also like to stress that the European Parliament has continued in its efforts to appeal for a complete stop to physical and mental violence against women for many years.


4. Waiver of the immunity of Vural Öger (vote)
- Report: Speroni


5. The implementation of the European Security Strategy in the context of the ESDP (vote)
- before the vote on Amendment 21:
Mr President, since an editorial problem has come to light here, I suggest that we deviate from the voting list I proposed and instead vote against Amendment 21.
(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)
- before the vote on Amendment 7:
(DE) Mr President, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has asked me if I might make a small amendment, and I shall be happy to do so, since it would not in any way alter the political thrust. The last line would then read:
'would welcome the willingness of the United States to join in such negotiations with Iran'.
(DE) I am therefore happy to do as the Liberals have suggested and amend the text accordingly.
(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)


Welcome
Before I give you the floor, Commissioner, let me first extend a welcome on behalf of this House to the members of a delegation from the People's Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia, who have just taken their seats in the official gallery above.
I would like to extend a very warm and special welcome to all of the delegation headed by His Excellency, Dr Lukman Hakim Saifuddin, the Vice-Chair of the People's Consultative Assembly.
Indonesia is a key EU partner in South-East Asia. Indeed, it is the leading country in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), with whom the European Union signed a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement in November 2009, and currently holds the chair of ASEAN.
Our two parliaments have an excellent relationship. A delegation from Parliament visited Indonesia just a few months ago. It is therefore a great pleasure to be able to welcome our friends and counterparts from the Indonesian Parliament today. We hope that your visit will be fruitful and beneficial.
(Applause)


Ensuring food quality: harmonisation or mutual recognition of standards (short presentation)
The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Petre, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on ensuring food quality: harmonisation or mutual recognition of standards.
rapporteur. - (RO) I would first of all like to thank the European Commission for this welcome initiative of the Green Paper on agricultural product quality and for the consultation launched on this topic.
The Green Paper provides a response to a real need on the part of Member States to promote the image of their agricultural products, especially the benefits in terms of quality, both among European consumers and consumers in other countries. These high standards are demanded by consumers and are a means of achieving maximum added value. Although the codecision procedure does not apply, I hope that the European Parliament's opinion will definitely be taken into consideration during the phases to come.
I would also like to thank my colleagues from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and, especially, the experts for the support they have given in promoting this report.
Simplification of marketing standards, keeping consumers better informed, particularly about the origin of food products, and better protection for European quality products at a global level are some of the most important proposals in the report.
Quality policy cannot be treated separately from the issue of the future of the CAP or from such challenges as climate change, the need to preserve biodiversity, energy supplies and water resource management. At the same time, consumers, as we all know, are showing an ever-increasing interest not only in food safety but also in the origin and production methods of food products.
Certification schemes are associated in the minds of consumers with a guarantee of higher quality. The purpose of standards must be to assist farmers in delivering quality products that meet consumers' expectations, avoid consumer disappointment and facilitate price comparison over a range of product quality.
As rapporteur, I would like to see a reduction in the level of complexity of the European system of basic standards and the numerous provisions which European farmers must comply with. I am in favour of simplifying and adopting rules that will sufficiently guarantee food safety in the EU.
I am also proposing means of simplifying the process for establishing standards by shortening procedures in the Commission, transferring this burden to other bodies or by referring to international standards. I also believe that any simplification must take account of the administrative tasks which come under the remit of the public authorities or stakeholders. As market trends change and technology advances, marketing standards may become partially obsolete and have to be adapted and updated.
The European Union must insist that all food products comply with its production standards, especially as regards health and safety. In addition to this, the European Union must ensure a level playing field between locally produced and third-country products. I am in favour of the mandatory introduction of labelling the place of production of primary products as 'produced in the European Union' or outside it.
I would also like this system to be extended to processed food products to take into account the origin of the main ingredients and raw materials and to establish a link between these items and the place where the product was last processed. I believe that rules must be adopted concerning the use of the terms 'mountain' and 'island', given the significant resulting added value for agricultural and food products from these less favoured areas.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Petre, for this report. The European policy on the quality of agricultural products represents a major issue for farmers, those involved in the food chain in general and, of course, consumers. This is why the Commission adopted the Green Paper on the quality of agricultural products and consulted the stakeholders before drawing up the legislative proposals.
The Commission welcomes your report, Mrs Petre, as well as the discussions that have taken place in the various European Parliament committees. These discussions are in addition to the 560 contributions received during the consultation period introduced to help the Commission to define the strategic directions which are to be published in a communication scheduled for the end of May this year.
The Commission intends to help Europe's farmers to communicate the demanding conditions of production with which they comply. I said that the proposal to indicate the place of production has received very little support, with even less support for the idea of a European logo showing compliance with European standards. On the other hand, there is a demand for 'country of origin' labelling.
The Commission welcomes the support for its policy of simplification toward trading standards. The Commission has always been in favour of simplifying legislation where necessary. Therefore, Mrs Petre, you spur us on and encourage us to continue our work.
The Commission has taken note of the request to define optional reserved terms, such as 'farm' or 'mountain'. I can tell you that this is also the view of the majority of those responding to the Green Paper.
As for geographic information, the Commission shares your view. The procedures should be simplified or, at least, speeded up. We are currently looking at the responses to the Green Paper to decide how to do this.
The question of an agency remains open. In the meantime, the advantages and disadvantages of such a body need to be studied with care.
As for the negotiations with the WTO, I can assure you that recognition of the European quality systems remains firmly on the Commission's agenda. A consensus appears to be on the horizon on the need to harmonise, to set up a framework for the certification systems and arrive at mutual recognition between these systems. Guidelines might be sufficient and would avoid too many administrative constraints.
This is a first step towards a true quality policy for agricultural products. The Commission is now impatiently awaiting the next steps and the fruitful discussions that we are expecting and speaking for my colleague Mrs Fischer Boel, I assure you that the Commission will involve Parliament in all the coming actions that it will take in this field. It is a field whose importance you have correctly emphasised, Mrs Petre, not only for the producers but also for all of us as consumers.
That concludes this item. The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - In a highly globalised world, farmers face increasing pressure. In order to be competitive, they can either cut costs or specialise in production of niche high-quality products. Thus, food-quality schemes do not only provide consumers authentic products but can also support rural development. To give farmers an alternative for rural development, we need to simplify the marketing standards and strengthen the incentives for small-scale producers to participate. But simplifying standards does not mean less quality or authenticity. EU standards for placing food on the market are already among the toughest in the world. To preserve confidence in quality schemes, it is necessary to implement them with reinforced controls and traceability systems. Furthermore, in the case of 'protected geographical indications' or 'protected designation of origin', it would be desirable to label the main ingredient(s) with the place of origin if not from that particular area. Consumers identify in these products specific qualities resulting from a certain origin or farming method. There are, however, cases when the ingredient indicated on the label is not exactly the same as the one really used in the food, for example 'Parma ham' not really coming from Parma.
in writing. - (FR) The consumer is increasingly demanding with regard to the quality, origin and safety of agricultural products. The EU has successfully introduced a quality labelling system that guarantees the authenticity of regional products and traditional production methods. The Member States and the EU now have a duty to promote these quality products and do more to protect them at international level. This supposes a guarantee of fair competition between European products and those of third countries by, in particular, protecting European farmers against any product which usurps a recognised nomenclature. Products whose names might be usurped should have WTO international protection and any request to register a protected designation from third countries should be subject to greater control. To provide better information to the consumer, it is important that the label specifies the country of origin of primary products and, in the case of processed products, the origin of the main ingredients and where the final processing took place.
At the same time, the EU must ensure that the principle of 'conditional access to the market' is upheld by recommending that the WTO adopts stricter protection standards for quality products, so that imported products can be subject to the same safety and quality requirements as European products.
in writing. - (PL) Madam President, quality is a key word throughout the entire food production chain, namely 'from field to table'. It is extremely important to make EU consumers aware of the high requirements and standards implemented in the area of foodstuffs, which farmers and producers of agricultural and food products have to meet, and of the associated costs. EU food is distinguished by its high quality and correspondingly high standards. The same cannot always be said of imported goods.
I do not think that we should create further certification systems at Community level, or further symbols which will differentiate food products in the EU. This will mislead the consumer. Instead, we should concentrate on promotional measures to inform consumers about EU symbols which are already in use and which consumers should view as a guarantee of quality.
Another challenge is to improve the process of assessing applications concerning regional products and to speed up the registration process. Unfortunately, the processing of these applications by the European Commission drags on for years. The Lesser Poland and Kielce regions of Poland are still waiting for registration of products such as fasola korczyńska (the Korczyn bean), kiełbasa lisiecka (Lisiecka sausage), wiśnia nadwiślanka (the Vistula region cherry), śliwka szydłowska (the Szydlow plum), jabłka łąckie (the Łącko apple), obwarzanek krakowski (the Cracow bagel) and fasola z Doliny Dunajca (the Danube Valley bean).


Verification of credentials : see Minutes


16. Governance and partnership at a national, regional and project basis in the field of regional policy (


Statement by the President
Today we are commemorating the fourth European Day of the Victims of Terrorism. It is a day that we must keep in our memory in order to remember all those who have been the innocent victims of terrorism.
The terrorist attacks in Madrid on 11 March 2004 -four years ago today - and in London on 7 July 2005 claimed many victims and left many families torn apart by the barbarities of terrorism.
Just last Friday, the terrorist organisation ETA assassinated again. Isaías Carrasco, a former Socialist councillor, was shot when he left his home in Mondragón. I wish to express our deepest condolences to all his family. As President of the European Parliament and on my own behalf, I should like to reassure you that the victims of terrorism - wherever they are in the world - will never be erased from our memories. Today, we shall commemorate Isaías Carrasco and all the victims of terrorism, in order to assure the victims of the madness of terrorist attacks of our respect and our sympathy. They are and will always remain present in our hearts and in our work. Sympathy for and solidarity with all the families of the victims is a duty for all of us.
The European Parliament is actively involved in the fight against terrorism and in supporting the victims of terrorist attacks. I cannot repeat often enough that there is absolutely no justification for terrorism. We must therefore take a united approach in this fight on the basis of the rule of law and with all the force of the law.
Ladies and gentlemen, please rise from your seats for a minute's silence in memory of the victims of terrorism.
(The House rose and observed a minute's silence.)


Composition of political groups: see Minutes


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes


12. Ukraine (
(DE) Mr President, one fact has changed since the resolution was drafted. Ukraine had not been officially named as chair of the OSCE for 2013 at that time. This is now official and for that reason, I propose the following amendment. I shall read it out in English:
'Calls on the Ukrainian Government to bring the legislation on media freedom into line with OSCE standards'. This part remains unchanged. The next part should read: 'decisive action in this regard would strengthen Ukraine's credibility as OSCE Chairmanship-in-Office for 2013'.


Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote.
(CS) Mr President, land and sea frontiers have shifted with enlargement, increasing customs officers' work from simple custom duties checks to combating counterfeiting, money laundering, drugs, and evasion of antidumping duties or health measures aimed at consumer protection. For this reason I have welcomed and expressed support for the Commission's proposal, which will allow a greater degree of coordination of Member States' bodies, including close cooperation with Europol, Frontex, Interpol and the World Customs Organisation. We would also ask that the third country authorities that will obtain commercial and personal data from the Member States be required to guarantee data protection standards equivalent to those in the EU. I thank the Members for having supported our Group's proposals today in full. I also want to thank the rapporteurs for their meticulous work.
(NL) Mr President, I voted for the Musotto report because it is not afraid to speak frankly about many aspects of fraud and measures to combat fraud. And I get that déja vu feeling when the report mentions the millions of funds wrongly paid and non-eligible expenditure claimed. Think, for example, of the hundreds of millions of euros in European funds which have already disappeared into the bottomless pit of the corrupt socialist-dominated Walloon state. A state in which numerous officials have been involved in scandals, in some cases for misappropriation of funds. When the report talks about the fragility of Commission scrutiny, I automatically remember the words of my Walloon colleague Mr Deprez who talked at the beginning of the month about bad projects which are the fault not only of Wallonia but also of the Commission because it approves these projects.
(DE) Mr President, the report that was originally presented was a good one, because it provided for clearly defined measures to support the fight against terrorism, such as necessary steps to improve prevention, closer police cooperation, more exchanges of data and assistance for the victims of terrorism.
Today's votes, however, have completely changed the report. Key elements of the report have been voted out. Jihadist terrorists, for example, are suddenly no longer considered dangerous. Other positions - unacceptable positions - have been voted into the report, with the result that I have had to vote against it, as the majority of the House has done. It is a pity about the original draft, because it would have been good to have a better set of political and technical instruments with which to combat terrorism and improve security.
(NL) Mr President, needless to say I voted against the Deprez report because I fundamentally disagree with the notion that jihadist terrorism is actually just a consequence of discrimination and the social isolation allegedly suffered by Muslims in Europe. To be honest, I know quite a few of my own people, quite a few people of non-immigrant stock, who really do suffer social isolation in Muslim neighbourhoods in our big cities but who do not turn to the crime of terrorism, absolutely not. So I am not going to say mea culpa on that one. It may perhaps be politically correct to lay the blame on perfidious Europe, but it is not 'correct' in the true sense of the word, anything but. When in God's name is Parliament going to understand that Islamist terror has nothing to do with discrimination or social exclusion, but flows directly from the world vision of Islam itself?
Mr President, I think we need to recognise, when we are talking about regions trading with each other, that it is not countries that trade with each other, but people and businesses that trade with each other. One of the errors of this particular report was that it failed to recognise the substantial trade barriers that stand in the way of entrepreneurs who wish to trade with the EU from third countries.
That is why I am pleased to announce a cross-party campaign, involving NGOs and civil society organisations, as well as grass-roots campaigners, called the Real Trade Campaign, which has five main aims: to abolish agricultural tariffs on imports; to abolish agricultural subsidies; to liberalise the rules of country of origin; to put more emphasis on aid for trade; and to encourage low income countries progressively to lower their trade barriers to each other in the hope that they will be part of the world community when it comes to trade and, eventually, trade more with us. This report was unbalanced in not recognising that those barriers exist from the EU perspective, which is why I voted against it.
Written explanations of vote
in writing. - (PT) I must say first of all that our vote against is a protest against postponement of the entry into force of a directive on workers' health and safety, a directive that in this case was adopted in 2004 which lays down the exposure limit values of workers to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, and prevention, information and training measures. The European Commission is now proposing a new directive with the sole aim of postponing the transposition of that directive by four years.
It is truly odd for the European Commission to be tabling this proposal for a postponement. It claims in justification that the medical community has reported its concerns on the implementation of the Directive and that various studies have now been commissioned. It is a pity that similar concern regarding the effects of this Directive is not shown in relation to the effects of other legal instruments and policy guidelines which seek to liberalise public goods and services and to deregulate labour relations and workers' rights. Only when workers' rights and health are being protected does the European Commission ask for more studies to postpone implementation. It is unacceptable.
in writing. - I welcome the report on exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents. The possible consequences which the transposition of the 2004 directive, outlining minimum safety standards for those using physical agents, could have on the development and use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in medicine make the recommendations of the report sound and logical. With the emergence of new studies calling into question the basis on which the directive's recommendations are based, we must allow time for this new information and the directive to be analysed. I therefore support the call to postpone the deadline of 30 April 2008 by four years, and have voted in favour of this report.
in writing. - (SK) I would like to stress that the demand for improving the health and safety of workers in the workplace is based, first and foremost, on risk assessment. In cases where workers are employed in an environment where they are exposed to agents that pose a health risk, a risk assessment is one of the employer's fundamental duties.
If a risk assessment reveals that there may be a risk, it is necessary to implement measures that will either eliminate the risk or reduce it to the lowest possible level. In my opinion, it is important to implement these measures at source. Other steps that can be taken are, for example, offering a choice of different working methods, technical measures to reduce the emissions, changing the design of workplaces and workstations, limiting the duration and intensity of exposure, making adequate personal protection equipment available, etc.
I agree that if a worker's medical examination shows that there is a specific health risk, it is the duty of the employer to provide health care for such workers. Preventive medical check-ups are part of the health care package: their goal is to identify at an early stage changes to one's health and to prevent damage to one's health as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields. Depending on the results, the risk assessment may be reviewed and additional measures may be implemented.
In conclusion, I would like to say that as a doctor I am pleased that Directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council lays down requirements concerning the establishment of action values and exposure limit values for individual electromagnetic fields, as well as requirements for the protection of the health and safety of workers exposed to electromagnetic fields in the course of their work.
in writing. - (FR) Artificial electromagnetic waves have a significant impact on the health of Europe's citizens, and above all on the health of workers, who need to be protected from electromagnetic fields just as they are already protected by two EU directives fixing limit values for exposure to noise and vibration.
The electromagnetic fields emitted both by radios and electronic appliances and by various telephonic devices - portable transmitters and telephones, fixed-base and wi-fi mobiles - are by no means harmless!
That is the finding of the recent BioInitiative report, and its conclusions are indisputable: the risks include forms of cancer, Alzheimer's disease and nervous problems caused by chronic or excessive exposure to electromagnetic waves. It is a health risk that has recently been highlighted by the European Environment Agency.
This is why I voted in favour of the report by Committee Chairman Jan Andersson, which aims to protect workers' health while taking account of the medical community's concerns about the compatibility of Community law with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. MRI scanning is an essential medical procedure for certain patients, and in my view it should have been made the subject of a derogation, instead of postponing application of the entire directive for four years!
in writing. - (PT) Although this is a codification procedure that does not alter existing legislation in any way, the underlying question raised is the need for a set of Community directives on a set of issues concerning tractors and other motor vehicles and their trailers, as can be seen from the codified version of several reports put to the vote in Parliament today.
This is an area in which I believe Community legislation is excessive. The existence of general legislation on motor vehicles covering general aspects would probably suffice, without the need to reproduce directives relating to each of these areas, as happens now, examples of which are: the suppression of radio interference produced by agricultural or forestry tractors (electromagnetic compatibility); driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors; rear registration plate lamps for motor vehicles and their trailers.
The vote in favour of codification does not alter this opinion in any way.
in writing. - (PL) I fully support the report under discussion, which will play a major role in the simplification and ordered arrangement of Community law. This is especially important for the development of civil society, since transparency and accessibility of European legislation provides the individual citizen with new opportunities to take advantage of specific entitlements.
That goal cannot be achieved as long as a large number of repeatedly amended regulations remain dispersed and have to be consulted partly in the original legislative act and partly in subsequent amending acts - a task that requires laborious comparison of many different legal instruments in order to determine the rules in force. Frequently amended regulations need to be codified in order to render Community law clear and intelligible.
I therefore fully support the codification of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network.
in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of this codification report, which is an important part of the work on increasing the clarity and transparency of Community law. The report does not involve any change of substance but brings together a number of different directives into a coherent text. We are of course in favour of such a simplification. It should be emphasised, however, that our vote in favour does not mean that we are satisfied with the formulation of the current legislation. We want to see raised minimum taxes on tobacco in the future and a real simplification of the regulatory system. In addition, it is important to ensure that the tax levels for different types of tobacco have a competition-neutral effect.
in writing. - (PT) This regulation replaces Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, which established the Community Customs Code. The justifications submitted are the amendments that have been introduced in the interim.
The Community Customs Code (CCC) was established by Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. At that time it was already a long and technically complex document which regulated Community customs matters.
Each specific aspect of the CCC was discussed by specialists in the relevant area, and CCC issues were addressed by the relevant Committee.
In a world in which trade is dominated by the large multinationals, this draft Code would have to reflect and serve the interests of those multinationals, reducing the travelling time of goods and simplifying customs procedures.
Whether measures seeking to combat customs fraud were also adopted with that simplification is another matter.
Simplification appears to have been favoured to the detriment of combating fraud. It is moreover no coincidence that Community documents and/or their translations often refer to 'facilitation' rather than simplification. That is a revealing slip of the pen.
in writing. - (SK) Counterfeit operations and goods smuggling today use methods that to be detected require an integrated approach to solving the new tasks facing customs authorities; similarly, customs officials need to be professionally trained officials.
The EU is a customs union, which is why the Community Customs Code is one of its most important instruments. Modernising the Community Customs Code means a complete revision of the original document that entered into force in 1992, in accordance with the demands of the e-customs and e-commerce environment.
What will the modernisation of the Community Customs Code bring? Most importantly it will modernise the control mechanisms and will result in electronic data exchange and inter-operable customs systems. It will simplify customs regulations and administrative procedures for both the customs authorities and economic operators. Centralised clearance is a new feature: it strengthens the cooperation between the Member States and the European Union. Simpler, faster and, most importantly, centralised clearance at a single location has great potential to reduce bureaucracy.
After three years of intensive institutional work we can proudly credit the European Parliament with a significant success in customs modernisation. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the difficult work done by the customs officials, without which the protection of the Union's external borders would be unthinkable.
I believe that today we prepared a practical present for the 40th anniversary of our customs union, which will be celebrated on 1 July 2008. I am glad I was able to contribute through my vote to the modernisation of the Community Customs Code.
in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to support the Dunn report. The purpose of the proposal is to bring the current Regulation (EC) No 515/97 into line with the new powers of the Community in the field of customs cooperation, stepping up cooperation and exchanges of data between the Member States and between the latter and the Commission. That regulation provides the legal basis for requests for assistance exchanged by the competent authorities in order to combat irregularities and fraud.
Despite the good results which have been obtained up to now, there are various reasons for amending the text, linked in particular to changes in the institutional context and balance. The aim is therefore to deepen coordination at Community level, in the light of the new instruments provided by European law, bearing in mind that at the time at which Regulation (EC) No 515/97 was adopted, the Treaty did not yet contain an article on customs cooperation (Articles 135 and 280).
in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the report presented by Mr Pomés Ruiz, as it represents a further measure to make the European institutions more accountable and transparent, and is designed to enable all citizens more closely to scrutinise and monitor the decision-making process surrounding the use of EU funds, thereby enhancing the basic principles of our democratic system.
The Parliamentary initiative expressly calls for publication of the beneficiaries of EU funds, whether this involves grants, contracts, agricultural or structural expenditure or other types of financing. The EC is also asked to assess the feasibility of an 'information system' for the wider public, able to provide full details of imports and of the individual beneficiaries of the complex financing work of the EU.
As it also sets out ethical standards for the holders of public offices and a blacklist of fraudsters, and makes provision for publishing the names of lobbyists and all the experts assisting the Commission, the Ruiz report should make it possible to create an efficient and transparent system for monitoring the management and effective use of EU funds.
in writing. - (PL) I support this initiative, aimed at achieving transparency with regard to EU budget expenditure. The sources of information on expenditure must be transparent and, above all, they must be arranged in a practical manner. I frequently hear comments from Polish entrepreneurs that access to the relevant sources of information is very dispersed, which makes it much more difficult for users to compare and evaluate, and to draw the right conclusions concerning their own projects.
The lack of transparency regarding EU budget expenditure leads to many injustices. In the new Member States, including Poland, where potential beneficiaries have relatively little experience in obtaining EU funding, clearly presented information can be extremely helpful.
in writing. - (PT) Apart from one or two aspects that give a little cause for concern, we believe that on the whole the report raises a number of very important and topical questions.
Following the so-called European Transparency Initiative, launched by the Commission in November 2005, the report reaffirms the need to introduce a fully operational system of information for the public on, for example, the final beneficiaries of the various structural funds.
The report suggests that the different beneficiaries may receive EU funds from several programmes or sectors of EU activity, and therefore recognises that it may be instructive to be able to identify all the amounts paid to an individual beneficiary across all sectors - such information being invaluable, for example, in the case of company relocations, according to the workers.
The report also addresses other important aspects, such as the declaration of financial interests of public office-holders in the EU institutions, suggesting that standards should be adopted, and that the composition of the 'expert groups' (formal or informal) the Commission decides to set up to assist it in its initiatives, particularly legislative initiatives, should be disclosed.
in writing. - I voted in favour of my own group's amendments on the Pomés Ruiz report, which were all adopted. It is important that the membership of Commission expert groups is fairly balanced and that the process for selecting such groups is fully open and transparent. It is to be hoped that the Commission takes heed of today's call from this institution.
in writing. - (PL) Mr Pomés Ruiz rightly argues that transparency depends on whether the information concerning beneficiaries is easily accessible and reliable, and lends itself to further research, comparison and assessment.
I agree with the request that the Commission should explicitly indicate the addresses of the websites containing information on the beneficiaries of EU funding managed directly and centrally by it in all documents relating to the EU budget and/or projects and programmes under its responsibility.
in writing. - I welcome the report on transparency in financial matters. Any move to improve the quality and availability of information, especially on agricultural policy and Structural Funds (which has proved difficult for the public to obtain), is a positive step towards the EU assuming its democratic obligations.
in writing. - (DE) This is a step in the right direction, designed to bring some light into the aid jungle and to facilitate access for ordinary people or at least give them some understanding of largely opaque processes. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that on this occasion highly paid lobbyists are not the only beneficiaries of such databases, but that they also enable SMEs and ordinary people, through easy-to-follow logical processes, to obtain the grants and other forms of support that interest them.
As far as a code of ethics for institutions is concerned, that is certainly to be welcomed. A body empowered to award public funding must be entirely above suspicion, if only for the sake of people's trust in public administrative authorities. There is, however, a need for caution, because scrutiny cannot extend to laying an institution and its members entirely bare and creating transparent people. Within the bounds of data protection, however, such an arrangement, namely the enshrinement of a kind of ethical code, is undoubtedly welcome.
The establishment of a 'blacklist' surely needs more discussion regarding the means of implementation, for this is another area in which data protection has a key role to play.
in writing. - (PT) People who administer public funds are expected and required to exercise the utmost rationality in managing them, the utmost rigour in presenting the results of the activity carried out, and total transparency. Taxpayers - since they are ultimately the financiers of all public funds - have the right (which they must exercise) to know who spends the funds made available to EU interests and how they spend them. I therefore voted in favour of this report, which is supported by a European Commission Communication that puts forward a number of proposals, the majority of which we agree with. I need only add that I believe that the principles and rules applicable to Community funds, particularly those managed directly by the European institutions, must also apply, mutatis mutandis, to the other public funds, namely Community funds managed by the Member States.
in writing. - (PL) I am voting in favour of Mr Pomés Ruiz's report on transparency in financial matters.
The rapporteur deals with a number of very important issues concerning the management of EU finances, such as disclosure of information concerning the beneficiaries of EU funds, declaration of financial interests of public office-holders in the EU institutions, and governance within the institutions and their annual activity reports.
We must strive to achieve continuous streamlining of procedures for the management of EU finances and the control of expenditure, with particular regard to the role of the European Parliament as the institution that grants a discharge in respect of implementation of the budget. We must put our money on transparency and the accurate accounting of financial resources.
in writing. - (PT) The fight against fraud and misappropriation of public funds, in this case Community funds, must be a priority in each Member State. It is therefore essential for each state to be equipped with the human and material resources necessary to allow it to perform this function properly.
It should be emphasised that at the same time as Member State responsibility for protecting public interests is reaffirmed - as it is in the report - policies are promoted in parallel that devalue and withdraw from Member States functions which should be theirs, particularly by dismantling government services, the constant disqualification and laying-off of their workers and the use of private companies to perform some of those functions. In our opinion the report should also examine the consequences for public fund management of transferring public service functions to private enterprises.
The extent to which the excessive complexity and inadequacy of the rules and the delay in awarding funds contribute towards the irregularities identified must also be assessed.
Instead, however, the report essentially focuses on punishment, namely by suggesting infringement proceedings and the suspension of interim payments to Member States.
in writing. - I supported the Musotto report on the fight against fraud. Misspending and mismanagement of Community money is something which regularly features in the press and media across the EU. It is essential that fraud is tackled effectively and in this regard the Member States have a huge roll to play alongside the various EU bodies.
in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall vote for the report by our esteemed colleague Francesco Musotto. Both reports highlight the fact that greater attention needs to be paid to certain countries which are lagging behind in terms of providing information in electronic format, and complying with management and monitoring systems. I agree with the rapporteur, who has stressed that it is important to pay particular attention to developing the activities to counter Community fraud which are being run by countries which evidently do not have monitoring systems which are effective enough and, in some cases, have a low level of compliance with European standards. In my view, careful monitoring of Community expenditure is fundamental. The fight against improper payments is even more important, bearing in mind that the money paid by European taxpayers must be used further to enhance standards of living.
in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted for the Deprez report on how the Union and the Member States should proceed in their action to rein back support for terrorism and the increase in recruitment of terrorists. The EU needs to consider these aspects in its action to combat terrorism and improve knowledge of the reasons for terrorist acts and radicalisation, which is currently limited. But this must be approached with strict respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in a manner which is appropriate to an open, democratic and just society. Constitutional rights, such as freedom of the press and freedom of expression and association, must not be restricted in any way.
in writing. - I will be supporting Mr Deprez's report on the factors favouring support for terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists. Nevertheless, I want to make two points. First, I want to raise the 'Nelson Mandela' question. We must distinguish between those fighting oppression and vicious authoritarian regimes like the apartheid regime in South Africa, and the nihilism of the 9/11 bombers. I would not have supported the Rivonia bombing, but neither would I, if Nelson Mandela had fled to Europe, have supported his extradition to a South Africa where he faced the death penalty.
Second, the West has to recognise that on occasion our actions or inaction in the Middle East, in Palestine and elsewhere contributes to rising hostility and terrorism towards ourselves. Sometimes we can be our own worst enemies.
in writing. - (FR) Two things alarmed me in the Deprez report on terrorism. The first was the absence of any mention of what is a primary cause of the terrorist threat in Europe, namely the unbridled influx of migrant groups who have no wish to integrate or assimilate but seek, on the contrary, to live by their own laws within their so-called host societies, and indeed to impose those laws upon them.
The second alarming thing was the apportionment of blame: according to you, Europe can never do enough in terms of renouncing its very essence, its national identities and its shared civilisation. It can never do enough to compromise its values in the name of tolerance and the so-called 'right to difference'. It can never discriminate enough against its own people and in favour of foreign nationalities, cultures or civilisations living on its territory. Ultimately, it is to blame for what happens to it. Yet those responsible for the terrorist attacks in London were British citizens, British-born, employed in jobs that many people would have been glad to have! They were not excluded; they were not victims. Yet they were called to arms!
The fact is that the multicultural, compartmentalised societies to which you so earnestly aspire are, by nature, societies prone to multiple conflict. And by denying realities, we merely fuel hatred and contempt.
in writing. - (PT) Although the report contains aspects we value and consider to be positive in the light of the deterioration in the global situation, among other things, it does not identify or denounce the real objectives and consequences of the 'fight against terrorism', particularly as a factor promoting and encouraging terrorism in itself.
The report refers, albeit conditionally, to the fundamental need for the diplomatic and peaceful resolution of conflicts around the world, though it does not indicate that the major factors that encourage terrorism include the spiral of violence fuelled by the militarisation of international relations, attacks on the independence of states and the sovereignty of nations, state terrorism, violation of fundamental freedoms, rights and guarantees, unbridled capitalist exploitation, the inhuman widening of inequality and injustice, and the existence of millions of human beings living in desperate situations - such as in Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine.
We believe that a serious analysis of terrorism - in all its forms, including state terrorism - will require it to be set in its political context, thereby revealing its underlying causes and the policies giving rise to it, such as the 'fight against terrorism' being waged by the USA and its allies.
Hence our abstention.
in writing. - I supported today's amendments stating that radicalisation should only be seen in terms of a clear link to violence and that civil liberties should be of paramount importance. The latter should not need repeating - we describe ourselves as a Union based on human rights and civil liberties. Indeed, the majority of the proposals in this report are already EU policy, which makes me wonder why we need yet another report.
I voted against the final report, not because I support the PPE position or the narrow Spanish domestic debate which so frequently poisons our discussions on tackling terrorism in this House, but because we have decided to consider the inclusion of the justification of terrorism in our anti-terrorism package. This may seem a small thing but we already know academic freedom, political debate and anti-radicalisation work are being limited by fears engendered by such legislation. Young Muslims have told me that they are frightened to discuss issues such Palestine or Iraq in case their criticism and explanation of how they feel are interpreted as justification or glorification and they end up in court. Parliament could have voted this paragraph out but chose not to.
in writing. - (FR) This report on eradicating terrorism takes its place in an endless series of texts glorifying human rights and the battle against discrimination. Yet the fact is that over-cautiousness about possible infringements of fundamental freedoms - particularly freedom of expression and freedom of religion - actually erodes the resources we need in order to fight terrorism.
It must be obvious by now that the European Parliament is more concerned with protecting rights of every hue, and with doing what is politically correct, than it is with the security of European Union citizens.
So it is that this report, about factors favouring support for terrorism, contains not a single reference to mosques although, as we know, they are nothing less than recruiting centres for future Islamic terrorists. Nor is there any reference to the imams of France, Belgium, the Netherlands or Denmark, who are effectively recruiting agents for Jihad-minded Islamic youth.
Let us not shock anyone; let us not ruffle any religious sensibilities; let us be non-discriminatory: it hardly amounts to an effective recipe for tackling the ever-growing threat of Islamic terrorism! What it does amount to is actually quite the reverse.
in writing. - (FR) This report reflects substantial amendment work by the members of the PSE, Verts/ALE, GUE/NGL and ALDE Groups in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. From a text that initially stigmatised Islam and Muslims in a quite disgraceful way, the progressive, centre-left majority managed to craft a balanced document highlighting the whole range of factors (economic, social and so on) that favour support for terrorism, asserting the need to respect fundamental rights, and emphasising the importance of combating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, especially in education, training and employment.
There are, however, two or three points in the report that I find dubious, notably the references to 'moderate Islam' and to 'monitoring of all the locations where propaganda is being disseminated that aims at persuading people to commit terrorist acts'.
Nonetheless, while I may be unable to give the report my wholehearted support, rejecting it would mean surrendering to the right and consigning months of effort to the waste bin.
That is why the best course, in my view, is to abstain and to explain the reasons for doing so.
in writing. - This report sought to outline a set of European norms and principles in the fight against terrorism. The opposition from the right to the report means that aid to victims, making the support of terrorist activity a criminal offence in all Member States and encouraging the need for political dialogue, will not form part of a coherent European anti-terrorism strategy. I voted in favour of the report and regret that agreement on what one would feel are issues that normally benefit from wide consensus was not achieved.
in writing. - (DE) Combating terrorism will be the challenge of this century. Resolute action against the machinery of propaganda is therefore the first small step in a bid to curb the spread of terrorism among the autonomous Islamic subcultures that exist throughout Europe.
We must face the fact that terrorism in Europe is purely Islamic in character, and that radicalised Muslims are completely immune to integration measures. Radicalisation is on the march in Europe, and the political classes often seem to be in denial to some extent when it comes to these issues.
For this reason a strategic approach to the fight against terrorism is necessary and, indeed, crucial to guarantee the survival of Europe, its peoples and its cultures. Efforts should begin with young people, but they must also show a degree of willingness to play their part.
Abrogation of all human rights - which, as we know, is already practised in some cases in the United States - must not of course occur in Europe. Nevertheless, it will be essential to be tough on terrorism.
All unlawful content found in the new media must, of course, be treated like any other illegal statement, and its authors must be prosecuted and punished.
in writing. - (PT) One of the greatest dangers in the debate on terrorism and its causes is to fall into one of two extremes: on the one hand, in seeking to understand everything, the perception that everything becomes acceptable and justifiable; on the other, the refusal to recognise different realities that makes everything confused and that groups everything according to the same concepts and standards. Both extremes are dangerous as an analysis because, since they are not accurate, they do not allow valid conclusions, leading the police, legislators and the public to make mistakes. They are in addition a threat to an understanding of the real situation, which is both inclusive and firm with terrorism. That is the challenge we are facing: to be able to understand reality exactly as it is, rather than as we fear it or would like it to be; and consequently to act on both its distant and its proximate causes, while never forgetting that terrorism cannot be accepted or justified in any circumstances. And that it is not the victims (whether actual or potential) who must understand and justify the crimes of the aggressors. For all these reasons, I voted against this report.
in writing. - (FR) The best means of combating terrorism is prevention, not the blanket surveillance of European citizens. So the important thing is to attack terrorism's underlying causes.
The phenomenon of violent radicalisation will cease once we address inequalities and injustices at both national and world level.
I abstained in the vote on this report because, in the process of combating terrorism, I do not think we can point the finger at one particular religion. Terrorism is not about religion, even though some people may look to what they term their faith in order to justify killing. The only way to combat violent radicalisation will be by strengthening the lay ethos in our societies and by engaging openly in intercultural dialogue with all the stakeholders, especially the representatives of civil society.
in writing. - (SV) Terrorism is a cross-border phenomenon and must be combated vigorously by common action. However, the fight against terrorism must always be waged by legal and proportionate means. The CIA flights in Europe, the use of torture, mock executions and waterboarding, which the CIA now acknowledges did happen, and the establishment of special secret jails must be vigorously condemned. Here the EU should have acted much more firmly than it did.
But to me, one thing is self-evident: it is our values which must form the basis of our common legislation. We must also ensure that Community legislation does not jeopardise or set aside important principles - including that of freedom of expression.
The report speaks of introducing a new concept into the Framework Decision: 'justification of terrorism'. I think this would be unfortunate. Not because it is not a good idea to ensure that all Member States have good laws against incitement, but because it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a definition which would be applied uniformly and which would not lead to thorny problems of interpretation. On the one hand, there is the important task of devising ways to combat terrorism and save lives. On the other hand, there is the principle of freedom of expression and the concern to maintain a high level of legal security in Europe. It is a question of finding the right balance.
in writing. - (PL) I am unable to support the Deprez report and its proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the factors favouring support for terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists.
The report advocates the wrong priorities in the struggle against terrorism. The proposal concentrates above all on social policy measures. That approach will not facilitate the struggle against terrorism, which also requires better border controls and coordination among prosecution agencies.
in writing. - The Left in the Parliament diluted a key, undeniable message in the original text of this report, which had stated that 'terrorism (in particular Jihadist terrorism) is today the most severe threat to the security of the citizens of the Union'. The report completely omits any reference to the largest factors favouring the recruitment of terrorists, namely uncontrolled immigration and, certainly in regard to the UK, the widespread lack of regard for the Christian religion and positive understanding of our own history and culture.
Not surprisingly, newcomers then see little with which to identify. It makes no mention of the way in which terrorism can be seen to succeed and the legitimisation and reward of terrorists such as the former leaders of the Provisional IRA. I therefore voted against the report and contributed to its rejection by Parliament.
in writing. - (PT) This EP own-initiative report is a genuine repository of goals and initiatives for liberalising world trade - whether in goods, services or capital - led by the EU and the European Commission, a virtually omnipotent body in common commercial policy with the new draft Treaty, which makes this an exclusive EU competence.
The opening up of markets is the dogma. The end of all and any trade barriers, especially with the developed and emerging economies, is the course of action. The opening up of markets, carried out if possible in the image of the EU single market, is the objective.
Since it considers the current WTO system to be insufficiently regulatory and binding, it advocates the 'European governance model' for trade, whether by concluding free trade agreements or by stressing conclusion of the current round of WTO negotiations - for which it calls for synergies to be created with the EU's major trading partners (such as the USA, Canada and Japan).
As an example, see how the report urges non-EU countries to lift foreign ownership restrictions on European companies... Economic domination is the aim.
Hence our vote against.
in writing. - I welcome the Guardans Cambó report on the EU's Strategy to deliver market access for European companies. The principles of improved mutual access, better support for SMEs and enhanced internal market access should help to bolster the Lisbon agenda. In particular I support the amendments on making a distinction between access to developed markets and emerging economies on one hand and LDCs and developing countries on the other.
in writing. - (PT) Although the European internal market is huge, the world market, opened up due to globalisation, is even larger and more dynamic. Access by European companies to that market, especially to the high-growth-rate emerging economies, must therefore be both a public and a private priority. While it is true, however, that in the area of private initiative it is not up to us to make choices or, worse still, to impose priorities, in the area of public initiatives there is a long way to go. On the one hand, we must be aware of the need to open up our markets if we wish - and we do wish - to gain increasing access to international markets. On the other, it is essential to focus on the capacity of European companies to stand up to the growing economic efficiency and competitiveness of companies from those countries, which means that we must unhesitatingly focus on the competitiveness and innovation of our own companies, which can only occur in a free, open and transparent environment.
in writing. - (RO) The Guardans Cambó report refers to the European Union strategy to facilitate the market access for European companies. In the first part of last year, the European Commission presented a communication regarding a stronger partnership in order to obtain market access for the European exporters.
The measures proposed by the Commission refer to restructuring the Community computer system that provides market access information and services in approximately 100 countries, better transparency and an information campaign, especially for small and medium-sized companies, regarding the Community services available for European exporters.
Nevertheless, I regret that some of the amendments submitted by the Group of European Socialists, which concerned the field of public procurement and competition, were not voted on.
I believe it is necessary to define a partnership between the Commission, the Member States and the European companies in order to facilitate the latter's access to third markets but, at the same time, we must ensure that the European principles and values are complied with in those markets: labour law, environmental protection, respect of intellectual property, and human rights.


16. Strengthening of Eurojust and amendment of Decision 2002/187/JHA (
- Before the vote on Amendment 19:
(DE) Mr President, as I indicated before the vote, there is an oral compromise amendment that I discussed with Mrs Weber and Mr Demetriou - a compromise between amendments 37 and 39. The compromise amendment would read as follows:
'Other forms of offences where there are factual indications that a criminal organisation or serious crimes are involved.'
(DE) That is how the compromise would be worded, and both amendments 37 and 19 would then be covered.
(The oral amendment was accepted.)


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


2. European Migration Network (


10. Rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway (