Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.10 p.m.)


Petitions: see Minutes


Seventh Human Rights Council of the United Nations (debate)
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the Seventh Human Rights Council of the United Nations.
President-in-Office of the Council. - I am pleased to have been given an opportunity to talk to you about the Human Rights Council.
By placing this item on the agenda for the plenary, the European Parliament has confirmed the importance that Europe as a whole gives to the Human Rights Council. It is a central, global body for the protection of human rights. The European Union is a firm advocate of an effective Human Rights Council. We have worked very hard to ensure that, in its final form, it offers a firm basis for a fast and efficient response to the most serious human rights violations.
As we know, in December last year the final institutional package for the Human Rights Council was adopted and now is the time for the Council to be fully operational. The sixth session of the Council which took place in September and December last year produced many important results, which I am not going to list here. It is our ambition to continue this work at the seventh and eighth working sessions.
The seventh session will take place next month and it will be very busy. Together with the eighth session, to take place in the first two weeks of June, it is to debate the extension of 25 special rapporteurs' mandates, regular reports by special rapporteurs and several disturbing human rights situations in some countries with regard to certain topics.
From the point of view of the European Union, the extension of mandates for the special rapporteurs for Burma/Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, and Somalia is of crucial importance for the seventh session of the Human Rights Council.
In addition, the European Union will use every opportunity offered by the Council to draw attention to the worrying state of human rights in other places around the world. To that effect it will get involved in interactive dialogues with individual special rapporteurs and with the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Interactive dialogues are a significant new instrument of the Council, and the European Union will continue striving to consolidate it as one of the key means offered by regular Council sessions to address individual issues.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, for the period of its Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Slovenia has listed intercultural dialogue as one of its priorities. Therefore, we are pleased that this issue will also be given due attention at the seventh session of the Human Rights Council.
The invitation sent to the High Representative of the Alliance of Civilisations, Mr Sampaio, to attend the session indicates an enhanced awareness that the activities of the Alliance of Civilisations help to strengthen religious tolerance, which is also one of the European Union's priorities in the human rights area.
Allow me to present another very important development within the framework of the Human Rights Council, namely the introduction of a universal periodic review, to which the European Union attaches great importance. This instrument should offer a means of reviewing the human rights situation in all the Member States under the same conditions. Members of the European Union which will already be subject to this mechanism by the spring (April and May) are currently making thorough preparations for this review. We will strive for maximum transparency and efficiency in that process. The method by which this periodic review is going to be conducted will have a significant effect on the credibility of the Human Rights Council as a whole.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to address Parliament on the subject of the Seventh Session of the Human Rights Council. Let me start by putting the Human Rights Council in what I believe to be the appropriate context.
I have said this before, but it is important to keep it in mind: the Council is a work in progress. This becomes clear when one looks at the past year and a half of its activities. Despite a rocky start, with deep divisions over the Lebanon crisis and a negotiating environment which continues to be difficult for the European Union, important results have been achieved. I am thinking here, particularly, of the innovation of human rights pledges submitted by candidates for election; the ability to hold special sessions on urgent human rights situations, a far cry from the annual ritual of its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights; the development of 'interactive dialogues' with UN special procedures, a very public means of focusing attention on human rights violations; and, finally, the adoption of the all-important institution-building package by consensus.
The President of the Council, Ambasador Costea, was in Brussels last week to brief the Council and Parliament on preparations for the Seventh Session. He described the Council as being 'better than expected and worse than hoped for'. This may sound cynical, perhaps reflecting the reality of day-to-day UN work, but I think it also sets the tone accurately. There is both good and bad in the Council, but it is making progress and is, therefore, on the right path.
Priorities for the Seventh Session fall between addressing urgent human rights situations effectively - increasingly, the standard by which the Council should be judged - and continuing to implement the institution-building reforms. On the human rights situation, effective follow-up to the special session on Burma/Myanmar is paramount. Amongst other priorities, the human rights violations in Sri Lanka and Kenya should also be addressed in this session. Implementing the institutional reforms is, arguably, just as important, given their impact on the future success of the Council. Here, agreeing criteria for the election of members of the Advisory Committee and the transparent appointment of suitably qualified candidates for the special procedure mandates to be renewed are key concerns of the Seventh Session.
Finally, let me make a couple of comments on the universal periodic review, or the UPR, as it is known. The President reported this week that the states under review in the April and May sessions are taking their responsibilities seriously. I hope so. The early sessions of the UPR are likely to set the tone for the remainder. It is, therefore, vital that the EU Member States being reviewed lead the way with frank critiques of their human rights records. This should be no beauty pageant.
Furthermore, I see an important role for the European Union in the 'outcome sessions' of the UPR. The UPR is, more than anything else, about the international community cooperating with states under review to achieve concrete human rights improvements after a genuine self-analysis of failings and needs. The European Commission and the Member States should not be slow in offering technical assistance where it is merited in these outcome sessions. To do so would show our genuine commitment to the promotion of human rights in an important public setting.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, Parliament is sending a delegation to the Seventh Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The delegation will be mandated to voice Parliament's concerns on the HRC's work and will report to the Subcommittee on Human Rights during its visit.
We see the Seventh Session of the HRC as a crucial one, because it will be the first to examine a large range of substantial issues under the new working methods stemming from the institution-building reforms package adopted in 2006 and 2007.
The credibility of the HRC rests on the implementation of these reforms and mechanisms, and our goal is to strengthen the Council's ability to address human rights violations around the world, especially the most urgent ones.
We pay tribute to the positive results of the HRC, in particular the developments in the implementation of the universal periodic review, and the review of special procedures, as well as to the positive achievements of the Human Rights Council Presidency.
We welcome the participation of civil society and human rights defenders, as well as the special procedures, which are at the core of the UN human rights machinery, and play a critical role, especially in the Human Rights Council.
At the same time, we condemn certain decisions of the Human Rights Council, such as that not to renew the mandates of the special rapporteurs on Belarus and Cuba.
Taking into account the lessons of the past, we stress the importance of competitive elections being held in all regions, in order to provide real choice among UN members. The reason is that, to our regret, some countries with problematic human rights records have so far been elected.
Once again, I call on the Council, Commission and Member States to continue to press for the establishment of membership criteria for election to the United Nations Human Rights Council, including the issuing of permanent invitations for special procedures.
Speaking about EU involvement, we recognise the active role of the EU and its Member States in the first year of work of the HRC. It is very important for the EU to speak with one voice when addressing human rights issues, and we call on the Commission and Council to adopt a common position so as to ensure EU Member States automatically sign and ratify all international human rights instruments.
Last but not least, the EU should make more effective use of aid and political support to the countries in question so as to give them incentives to cooperate with the Human Rights Council.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, the United Nations Human Rights Council is one of the most interesting areas in the field of human rights for the European Parliament. We closely monitor the activities of that Council, and the European Parliament sends its missions to Geneva twice a year.
I would like to make three remarks. First, I would like to pay tribute to the positive achievements of the Council Presidency and, at the same time, I would like to stress the importance of support from the European Union and, equally, of candidates with high standards of integrity for the elections of the new President of the Council, to be held on 23 June 2008.
Second, I would like to stress that special procedures are at the core of the United Nations human rights machinery, playing a critical role, especially in the Human Rights Council, civil society and democratic states. In particular, the EU States need to monitor and pressure Council members to fulfil their responsibilities to promote human rights.
The European Parliament has to condemn the Council decisions not to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteurs on Belarus and Cuba. We should welcome the renewal of the country mandates of the Special Rapporteur on Sudan and of the independent experts on Liberia, Haiti and Burundi.
Third, much legitimate criticism of the Council centres on its disappointing treatment of specific country situations. Particularly one-sided international sympathy for the Palestinian cause and the agonised efforts of Islamic states led the Council to address the Middle East conflict, but there was repeated criticism of only one state - Israel - ignoring violations by Hezbollah and some Palestinian factions. The challenge is to build the political will for the Council members to effectively address such a situation in a just manner.
, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Mr President, on the eve of the Seventh Human Rights Council, Parliament wishes to send a message of support, vigilance and mobilisation.
The Council is the only international body that actually fights human rights violations, and particularly that responds to emergencies, to human rights crises, but also that works long term with the special rapporteurs and in an interactive dialogue with NGOs. The Council is unique and is at a difficult turning point in its history. One year will not be enough to establish its effectiveness. On the other hand, it may be enough to discredit it, and there have been many attempts to weaken and divert it, as we know.
I would first like to mention the situation of Mrs Sigma Huda, Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons. She is in prison in deplorable conditions in Bangladesh. Next, concerning these same special rapporteurs, the Advisory Committee's proposals will finally be decided by the President as a last resort. That gives you an idea of just how important his role is, and I would like to salute the excellence of the work done by President Costea, and at the same time draw your attention to the fact that he will be replaced in June.
That is why the EU has to remain attentive and proactive. Its action is decisive. We saw it in Gaza. The EU's abstention waters down the message considerably, and weakens the Council itself.
However, when the EU takes the initiative of a special session and throws its whole weight behind it, the Council grows and achieves results. To do this, our Member States need to strengthen their transregional alliances to convince others and prevent any block reaction that would send the Council back into the throes of political contingencies.
We therefore call upon our governments to step up their efforts and set an example. Set an example by appointing an independent expert when they participate in the assessment of another government as part of the UPR and by themselves being open to criticism and self-criticism, and set an example for the election of new members. A standing invitation to the special procedures should be a criterion of prime importance for EU Member States.
Mr President, I commend this resolution to you. Indeed, I commend the work of the Parliament's delegation to Geneva where, as well as holding our own EU representatives to account, we work with them to engage in dialogue with countries in other regions of the world, demonstrating Europe's strength and solidarity in upholding human rights and international humanitarian law.
I am grateful for the inclusion of my amendments in the text supporting the call for a special session on violence against women and for the signature and ratification by all our countries of all international human rights instruments. I call for Europe's support, in particular, for the renewal of the mandate of the Special Representative on Business and Human Rights. But having just returned from Gaza, I would like to commend to you paragraph 34 in particular. This is a state of siege, with mediaeval conditions being imposed on the people of Gaza. Today we will identify it as a clear breach of human rights. If even Tony Blair cannot get Israel to allow the import of equipment to stop 40 000 litres of untreated human waste poisoning the water supply, it is time for Europe to act. European troops under a new mandate could help supervise the reopening of the borders and, as I now ask for your support, European countries can achieve agreement on all sides in the UN Human Rights Council to seek enforcement of international humanitarian law. We, as Europe, can take the initiative, as was suggested by the Slovenian Presidency at our Human Rights Subcommittee in Brussels only last week. We can propose a balanced text that recognises that both terrorist rocket attacks as well as the collective punishment of the blockade both break the fourth Geneva Convention. In doing so, we can achieve a consensus in Geneva which can make a real difference to the humanitarian crisis suffered by the people of Gaza.
(FI) Mr President, a critical examination of the old mechanisms and ways of working and the establishment of new practices have inspired much hope in the ability of the Human Rights Council to act as an effective body which focuses on how human rights violations are dealt with and allows political situations to fall clearly within the competence of the UN bodies.
The credibility of the Human Rights Council also depends on the new special procedure mandate holders who are to be appointed in March. It is hugely important that expertise, impartiality, independence and objectivity are the crucial factors.
Like many others here, in the current situation I too would like the decision of the Human Rights Council not to extend the mandates of the special rapporteurs on Belarus and Cuba to be reconsidered. The EU Member States should also try to guarantee that the mandate of the independent expert on the Democratic Republic of Congo is extended.
President-in-Office of the Council. - I would like to thank the Members who took part in this debate and offered their opinions, which will undoubtedly help the Presidency of the Council in its preparations for the seventh session of the Human Rights Council.
I would like to stress in particular that I strongly agree with the statement by Mrs Andrikienregarding the need for the European Union to appear unified, speaking with one voice, at the Human Rights Council.
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the Presidency is also hoping for good cooperation with the European Parliament delegation. The importance of the European Union's role in the promotion and protection of human rights is indisputable, which is why we would like to have the best possible cooperation of this revered assembly.
I would like to end by saying that the seventh session of the Human Rights Council will start with the meeting of ministers, which will be addressed, on behalf of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, by the President of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, Minister Dimitrij Rupel. A number of other high representatives, perhaps even the Secretary-General of the United Nations, will be taking part.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the European Union is a very important body that has to go in the right direction and lead the Human Rights Council in that direction.
The Council has yet to prove itself as an effective human rights organ within the United Nations; that much is clear. However, as I said before, it is too early to pass a final judgment. Indeed, to do that at this stage might even hinder its future progress. That is why it is important that the human rights community continues to support the Human Rights Council, albeit with a critical eye. In that vein, I am pleased that a delegation of the European Parliament will be attending part of the Seventh Session to assess its work at first hand.
Like Ms Andrikienė, I think that the European Union will have to strive to speak with one voice on this issue. Voting patterns of EU members on the Council are very harmonised, and the more harmonised they are, the more important our voice will be.
Concerning the criteria for membership, so far it has proved impossible to draw up such criteria. However, the pledges on human rights commitments will be important steps towards more responsibility for the candidate countries and, as I have said before, this is an important step.
Concerning the special procedures, the EU is fighting actively to extend existing mandates and establish the new ones we deem necessary.
Finally, let me say a word on Belarus and Cuba. The Council can be criticised for not continuing the mandates for those countries, but this was a compromise made necessary to save many of the other country and thematic mandates that are currently being reviewed. Similarly, for instance on Sudan. It is regrettable to lose the mandate of the Expert Group on Darfur, but this was unfortunately unavoidable in order to save that of the Special Representative on Sudan.
Therefore, in order to achieve consensus, the European Union sometimes has to be prepared to make difficult compromises. But, again, on the whole, we are a very strong motor and body in this area, and we have to go on working to ensure that the Human Rights Council really works and goes in the right direction. The European Parliament is a very, very strong tool to help us on that path.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 21 February 2008.


Agenda for the next sitting: see Minutes


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


Belarus (debate)
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on Belarus.
Mr President, honourable Members, the EU's relationship with Belarus is not without its complications. I would like to begin this debate by explaining why the Council took its decision in November concerning the EU's relations with Belarus. I know that this issue is one that is of great interest to many Members.
When we discussed this, we focused on two important aspects. On the one hand, the EU wanted to send a clear signal that we are not happy with the lack of positive progress in recent months. On the other, we wanted to establish the subsequent steps within the framework of our dialogue with Belarus, with the aim of encouraging Minsk to take action in a number of areas.
I feel that the result was a well-balanced decision that takes these aspects into account. It has three main elements.
Firstly, we are extending our sanctions while, at the same time, suspending the travel restrictions for almost all the individuals concerned. The exceptions are four people directly linked to the political disappearances and the chair of Belarus's Central Electoral Commission.
Secondly, we are open to the possibility of visa facilitation and readmission agreements between the EU and Belarus.
Thirdly, there is the prospect of a partnership and cooperation agreement between the EU and Belarus. Naturally, this would require positive developments as regards democracy, human rights and the principles of the rule of law. The Commission has been asked to carry out some preparatory work based on these action plans, which were developed within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In our discussions, we took into account the fact that the situation in Belarus is better than it was 18 months ago, despite the fact that there have been some backward steps. The expulsion of a student from university after taking part in an Eastern Partnership forum is a very serious example of this.
The transition from an authoritarian society to democracy - as many Members of this House know extremely well - is a gradual process. It will take time for Belarus and there will be many obstacles along the way. Our full support is therefore required.
The global financial crisis is actually providing opportunities for influence. Belarus's economy is on its knees and Russia is no longer prepared to underwrite the country. In the energy sector, the low gas prices are just a memory.
Can we then exploit this situation to encourage Belarus to change track? There is no other way than through dialogue. We must help to strengthen the cautious movement towards greater openness. We have to consider how effective our sanctions policy is. Last year's decision to suspend visa restrictions after Minsk had released the final prisoners in August 2008 helped bring about some progress in our dialogue.
The use of sanctions is an important way for the European Union to exert pressure. At the same time, the Commission has taken a number of steps aimed at cooperation with Belarus and the country is part of the Eastern Partnership. Our support for Belarus within the International Monetary Fund has also been a positive step.
We have set out the conditions, and now we must proceed reasonably and prudently. The decision to extend the suspension of the visa prohibition list sent a signal that we are serious about rewarding positive steps that are taken. If things continue to develop in this direction, we can go a step further.
At the moment, discussions are focusing on two possible alternatives. One is the development of a formal agreement and the other is the possibility of visa facilitation and readmission agreements. The position taken by the Council has laid the foundation for more specific consideration of these issues.
A partnership and cooperation agreement could result in us formalising the relationship between the EU and Belarus in a new way. It is a way of combining conditionality with our various means of exerting pressure within the framework of a legally binding agreement. A partnership and cooperation agreement would also allow Belarus to participate fully in the bilateral element of the Eastern Partnership.
Where visa facilitation is concerned, the intention is that this will be aimed at ordinary people, the general public, rather than at the political elite. It would represent an important opportunity to encourage contacts between civil society and the citizens of Belarus and the EU. It could become a crucial factor in opening up and influencing Belarusian culture. It is entirely in line with the aims of the Eastern Partnership.
Visa facilitation is linked with readmission. This should not be a great problem, since Belarus has demonstrated its ability to cooperate on matters related to border controls.
Belarus is in an important location on the eastern border of the EU. Consequently, we have an interest in seeing Belarus modernise, develop and move towards becoming a democratic, free country. The importance of having democratic neighbouring countries is a cornerstone of our security strategy.
We must work to instil our values - such as democracy, a market economy and respect for human rights - in Belarus. There is a clear parallel here with how we develop partnerships with a number of countries to both the east and the south.
I would like to end by emphasising that naturally, we must continue to set clear conditions in our relations with Belarus. The country must continue to move forward. President Lukashenko's repressive policies must be replaced by greater democracy and greater tolerance. The principles of the rule of law must be respected. This is the message that we are sending in all the bilateral contacts that take place between the Member States and Belarus.
Dialogue is essential if our demands are to bring results. That is why we on the Council have also welcomed the increased contacts aimed at strengthening a transition to democracy. We will continue to develop our support for the democracy movement and civil society which are working for reform and European integration in Belarus. We are very grateful for the significant support and commitment demonstrated by the European Parliament in this work.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, dear colleagues, Council President, honourable Members, it is a pleasure to discuss with you today our very important but also our very challenging relationship with Belarus. I think it is important because Belarus lies at a crossroads on our continent; and it is challenging because Belarus' own choices for its own future, and for its relationship with the EU, remain unclear. It still remains to be seen what they will be, so we will have to go on working with them.
Over the last two years, the European Union has sought gradually to engage with Belarus and to encourage further reforms, to build on the, I have to say, modest measures taken so far. I am convinced that the most productive approach to Belarus will be one based on pragmatism. Our engagement with that country needs to reflect positive steps by Belarus itself, but we also have to show at least some flexibility.
We have signalled clearly that we would like to see Belarus take its place as a fully fledged participant in the European neighbourhood policy, and that the bilateral track of the Eastern Partnership can be opened to Belarus if it shows through sustained action its wish to make irreversible steps towards democratic reform.
In the meantime, we have shown our goodwill in a number of important ways. A number of EU high-level visits to Belarus this year helped strengthen political exchanges. We launched a dialogue on human rights issues in June 2009. The Commission is engaged in a growing number of technical dialogues with Belarus on issues of mutual interest.
Last month, for instance, the External Relations Council decided to extend existing restrictive measures, notably the visa ban and the assets freeze, till October 2010, given the lack of significant progress on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
However, to encourage democratic progress, the Council also extended the suspension of the restrictive measures. And the Council also took two further decisions to encourage Belarus to stay on the path of reforms. I very much welcome that the Commission can now start working on the visa facilitation issue, and on a shadow ENP action plan, the 'joint interim plan'. These steps provide an incentive for moves towards democracy in Belarus, which I am confident will be well understood, on the one hand, by the government, but, on the other hand, particularly by the people.
The joint interim plan will be developed with both the authorities and civil society in Belarus, and I hope it will open the door to deeper dialogue with Belarus, including on delicate political issues.
My services are preparing recommendations with a view to negotiating directives on visa facilitation and readmission agreements. Visa facilitation is a priority for the Belarusian people, and I would like to see more Belarusians visiting the European Union, travelling freely, studying and doing business. But naturally, the final decision on the negotiation directives will lie with the Council.
In addition, the Commission is prepared to increase the allocations of financial assistance to Belarus for the period of 2010-2013. We have proposed a package of macro-financial assistance worth EUR 200 million, for which we are seeking the approval of Parliament. The Commission is supporting the idea of the EIB including Belarus in the Bank's new mandate. I really hope this will go further.
However, if Belarus wishes to come closer to the EU, it is clear it must show this through its actions. There must be an end to political prisoners and politically motivated prosecutions. Reform of the electoral legislation in line with OSCE/ODIHR recommendations is sorely needed. The liberty of the press, freedom of speech and of assembly should be permitted and become the norm. The European Union also encourages Belarus to abolish or declare a moratorium on the death penalty. We call for improved conditions for NGOs, civil society and human rights activists. All these steps could play their part in accelerating the development of a closer partnership between Belarus and the European Union.
In conclusion, therefore, our offer to Belarus is clear. The European Union is ready to work closely with Minsk and support its political and economic development. But we would welcome significant positive steps from the Belarus leadership which would allow us to develop our relationship in the same way as we do with other eastern partners if they play their part.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, why has my political group insisted on having the resolution after the debate? Not only to express our support for the decision taken by the Council - because this is a wise decision and a proper decision and I agree with both your arguments - but the main reason is the increase in repression that has happened in Belarus quite recently. The resolution will refer to all those cases and, if any are abandoned during the drafting of the resolution, you may be sure they will be proposed as an amendment, either by the EPP in written form or by me in oral form tomorrow.
There is another issue which has been revealed by the media only today, namely a new draft law prepared by Alexander Lukashenko designed to totally control the Internet, as in China or even in North Korea. I think that we should also refer to that.
Why are these issues happening in Belarus? My private opinion is that it is partly due to the unconsidered - let me say, unwise - visits by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who met Alexander Lukashenko and praised him as a democratically elected leader but did not find time to meet with the opposition, and also, a little earlier, by the President of Lithuania, who has invited Lukashenko to Lithuania, in an ill-considered way, I would say.
Finally, let me refer to this morning's speech by Sergei Kovalev who said, citing Sakharov, that the Western world should offer and demand. This is the issue. We should offer deep cooperation with Belarus, but we should also demand from the Belarus authorities real progress in the area of human rights, democracy and freedom.
Minister, Commissioner, I cannot but agree with the assessment that Belarus is a difficult partner for the European Union.
However, we cannot support the approach which the Commission and Council have been adopting in relation to this country during the last year. This approach, based on a gradual opening of the door to Belarus, linked to appropriate decisions made by the authorities in Belarus, does not seem to us to be the best way for this country to gradually turn into or, at least, come as close as possible to our idea of a democratic country.
We would like to see slightly more substance in the measures which the European Commission and Council are adopting, as well as slightly more focus on the actual citizens of Belarus, because this is the way to get the citizens themselves to rally behind the cause which we are trying to promote there in dialogue with the Belarusian authorities, namely, democratisation, openness and the holding of free and democratic elections. In present-day Europe, it is inconceivable that this process cannot happen in a European country.
The problems we have with regard to the Eastern Partnership are linked to this issue as well. You are aware that the European Parliament does not support official relations with the Belarusian Parliament because we consider that MPs in Belarus are not elected in fair and democratic elections, which means that this parliament cannot be our official partner.
Also connected with this is the imminent establishment of an Eastern Partnership Parliamentary Assembly, which is facing certain problems. However, our approach will be to try, along with the Commission and Council, to pursue a common strategy so that we are ready at parliamentary level as well to implement appropriate measures for Belarus, if the Belarusians, on their side, implement their measures and fulfil the demands which we are making of them.
In this regard, I urge the European Parliament, the European Commission and Council to join forces in their efforts in order to avoid independent actions, such as those of Prime Minister Berlusconi, which harm the general cause and give further encouragement to Lukashenko. This must be avoided.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would like to put forward one more proposal, because relations are really frozen between the Parliament and the authorities, but we do have relations with the opposition. My proposal is that I will propose to organise a conference, in Latvia or somewhere else, at which there would be participants from the authorities and from the opposition. The themes of the conference would be, firstly: energy, security, economy, transit problems, which, in Belarus, are very significant, as also for the EU; secondly: visa questions, neighbourhood questions regarding citizens; thirdly: the problems with the democratic situation, party problems and human rights; and fourthly: the real view from the Belarus side - how they see the Eastern Partnership in the near future. At the end of the day, I believe that this is one of the ways in which we could bring about a thaw in the frozen situation that we really do have. It has to be a two-way street, because with a one-way street, we will not succeed.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, about two weeks ago, the Italian Prime Minister became the first Western Head of Government for many years to visit Belarus. He praised the work and policies of President Lukashenko and acknowledged the high election turn-out as being an expression of the high level of admiration and love of the people for their president. Unfortunately, he forgot to visit the opposition, which would otherwise be customary. The response was not to acknowledge the fact that steps had been taken towards liberalisation in Belarus; instead, the line taken towards the opposition became less tolerant. It resulted in repression and there was jostling, brawling and the like.
This is also why we have tabled this resolution today, in order to make it clear which powers and which civil society approaches we support and to clarify the fact that we will only be able to talk about a partnership - something that is, of course, as yet on ice - once we are also able to fully continue the human rights dialogue with Belarus. This means freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the freedom of the opposition to work, the allowance of opposition parties and so on. We believe that this is important and that it must define our partnership in the future. We hope that the European Union will find a common line here and that the future High Representative will also put a lot of effort into promoting it.
Mr President, Belarus, a Central European country, is the historical cradle of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Duchy defended the values of Western civilisation in its north-eastern periphery. Therefore, it is good that the Council's conclusions of 17 November this year provide for new opportunities for dialogue, as well as greater cooperation between the European Union and Belarus.
However, we must move from words and gestures to something concrete. Let us begin with people-to-people relations. These must be strengthened by including Belarus in processes at European and regional levels. I call on the Commission to speedily prepare recommendations on directives for the simplification of visa regimes, and on the complete abolition of the visa regime within the 50km border zone. People in the centre of Europe must have rights and opportunities to move freely to both sides.
I have read through the draft resolutions on the issue in question carefully and I have listened with interest to the discussion. It seems to me that most of the drafts submitted attempt to make a positive change to the hitherto cool relations between the EU and Belarus. I regard the Eastern Partnership project as a good opportunity to bring about a significant improvement in our relations. I would like to emphasise firstly that in the economic sphere, a pragmatic approach predominates but it cannot be merely a one-sided process. The EU must also open up to Belarusian goods and services. Secondly, it is essential, in my opinion, to release rapidly the financial resources for Belarus within the framework of the Eastern Partnership. Thirdly, dialogue could be assisted through a relaxation of the EU's visa policy. Fourthly, we should give more support to the environmental component of our cooperation. We all know that Belarus suffered from the Chernobyl disaster and our assistance will be more than welcome. Although I understand the historical and political circumstances of Belarus, I firmly believe that the time has also come for Belarus to join the ranks of those countries that have outlawed the death penalty.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in response to the previous speaker, I wish to reiterate the right of any Head of State or Government to visit governments within or outside Europe, provided that this is consistent with the wishes of the Council. I therefore find this preventive censure of the Italian Prime Minister very annoying.
However, to return to the matter in hand, in signing up to the Eastern Partnership, Belarus has demonstrated its will to throw in its lot with Europe on the road to economic development and reform. The Commission has recognised certain progress made in Belarus, such as the release of political prisoners, reform of the electoral code and the possibility for certain opposition newspapers to circulate, albeit under government control. This does not mean full-blown democracy but is certainly a departure from the past.
The European Union is therefore faced with the choice of encouraging reform through dialogue within the Eastern Partnership and within Euronest and, at the same time, maintaining a policy of vigilance over the results achieved and steps taken. I therefore agree that Mr Vigenin should be given the task of reaching agreement with Minsk over a satisfactory representation in the Euronest Assembly that is not limited only to civil society but includes members of the Belarus Parliament.
This would enable us to engage in a dialogue with the political decision makers on subjects including human rights and to establish a channel of communication with the government to support the process of reform. They would then have no excuse for failing to respond or providing unsatisfactory answers.
(SK) Belarus deserves more attention, both from the EU and the European Parliament. I definitely approve of our offer of a helping hand as long as the response of the other side is specifically measurable and adequate. We must, however, be principled in our demands. The beneficiaries will then be democracy, good relations between the EU and Belarus and definitely the citizens of that country.
I therefore welcome the invitation to Belarus to join the Euronest joint parliamentary assembly on the clear condition of a 5+5 format for delegates, which is strongly supported by the European Parliament. On the other hand, the gross breach of principle in relation to official visits of EU member representatives is regrettable. One such principle which is required on an official visit to Belarus is a meeting with the opposition. It is precisely this principle that was flagrantly breached through the absence of such a meeting in the recent visit by the leader of an influential Member State of the EU. Behaviour of this sort deals a blow to our efforts, damages the good name of the European Union and its institutions and definitely does not help to strengthen democracy in Belarus.
(LT) For six years in the European Parliament, I have maintained and continue to maintain that the European Union will do most good for the citizens of Belarus and the EU, especially those living in neighbouring countries, not by implementing sanctions or restrictions, but by opening the doors as wide as possible to cooperation among people, in particular the young, and to closer contacts in business, culture, science and other areas.
It is very good that for a second year, Brussels is pragmatically striving for change by moving closer to Belarus and its people. Yes, that policy has yet to yield all the positive results expected, but to return to the past would really be wrong. Therefore, I support the actions of the Council and the Commission, in particular, the prospect of an action plan for Belarus.
When the new EU countries joined the Schengen Agreement two years ago, the remains of the Berlin wall, metaphorically speaking, shifted to the East. Whereas before, residents of Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Belarus, often related, were able to travel to each other without any taxes, now Belarusians must pay almost half their monthly salary for a Schengen visa. Such bureaucratic and financial walls must be torn down as soon as possible. On the other hand, Minsk's actions to delay the agreement with Lithuania and other states on facilitated passage for border inhabitants casts doubt over the authorities' goodwill.
According to surveys, in Belarus around 30% of residents are in favour of better relations with the European Union. Meanwhile 28% of residents would like better relations with Russia. This is not a contradiction. The European Union really does not aim to tear Belarus from Russia or to make them enemies. It is not the West that needs reforms, but the Belarusians themselves.
Well, dynamic economic modernisation and participation in the Eastern Partnership policy may help to carry out that task.
(PL) Mr President, while listening to our debate, I have the impression we are saying too little about our main objective, which is free elections in Belarus. We should always give attention to this. As MEPs returned in democratic elections in our countries, we cannot ignore this main objective.
I am convinced that both in the opposition and government camps, many people are waiting for us to talk about free elections. They, too, are waiting for this signal. I know this from my own experience. They deserve a clear and plain answer. We are fighting for Belarus to have free elections, and for Belarus to be a free partner in Europe. Yesterday, we were able to obtain a declaration from Mrs Ferrero-Waldner on the Sarkozy Plan, for which I thank her.
Today, I have another idea. I would like Mrs Ferrero-Waldner to make a clear declaration that until free elections are held in Belarus, there will not be any political contacts with the country in areas for which she is responsible, except for the opposition, which will not be excluded in this way. Please say this publicly. We will be much obliged to you for this. It will be a Christmas present for us.
(NL) Mr President, at the start of this year, on Wednesday 14 January to be precise, I also had the honour of taking part in a debate in this House on Belarus, at which Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner was also present. At the end of the parliamentary year, it is natural to look at whether there have been any significant changes in EU-Belarus relations; and, to my mind, 2009 has been characterised by the status quo between Minsk and Brussels. What conclusions should the European institutions draw from this? First of all, the danger remains of President Lukashenko's regime in Belarus simply continuing to vacillate between Moscow and Brussels, or between feigned integration with Russia and feigned rapprochement with the European Union. On the one hand, there is Europe's economic affectivity; on the other, the desire of the Belarusian political elite to consolidate its power. The latest changes in position at the top political level in Minsk point to a harder line.
The European Union should use a balanced strategy to seize the opportunity to bring about a gradual change in mentality at population and elite level, an opportunity arising from the dialogue and cooperation structures now established, combined with the global economic crisis, that also impels the Lukashenko Government to act.
In short, all European institutions need to contact all Belarusian target groups to this end, including the state authorities, the opposition forces, civil society, and even the civilian population. Naturally, the European Parliament will also seek substantive contact with the Belarusian Parliament.
(PL) The experiment with a thaw in relations between the Union and Belarus continues to yield ambiguous results. Political pressure from the European Union is, therefore, an essential condition for maintenance of the very weakly outlined direction of change in Minsk. Opening channels of communication with the authorities must go hand-in-hand with rejection of the undemocratic parliament in Minsk. We must also take scrupulous care that free Belarusians do not feel rejected, and so the thoughtless omission of meetings with representatives of the opposition is extremely irresponsible.
Minsk must realise that our policy has one objective - democracy in Belarus. Political changes will be possible only when we ensure that Belarusians have access to independent information. A project which, today, demands our support is, in particular, the television station Belsat, which has, for two years, been broadcasting the only Belarusian-language channel giving access to uncensored information about the situation in the country, and is enjoying growing interest among Belarusians.
(DE) Mr President, Mrs Malmström, Commissioner, I am particularly pleased that Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, as our Commissioner, has always supported democracy and the market economy and has also set new standards in this regard in Belarus. In this connection, I would like to thank her most sincerely for her work as the Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy and to wish her all the best for the future.
(PL) Mr President, we have found ourselves in a situation which points to a kind of schizophrenia in our contacts with Belarus. For European leaders are talking with the President and with a Belarusian Government which represents the Belarusian Parliament and political system. This is good. However, we do not want to speak to a parliament which was returned in elections which were badly run and were neither free nor transparent, because we have our principles. This schizophrenia must come to an end at some point, and this should be said clearly.
The definitive moment for us to say what our policy towards Belarus is are next year's local elections. Either they will be held in accordance with standards which we accept and will indicate significant openness, or they will not be held in this way and we will simply have to stop thinking about openness from Belarus, because it will be obvious that Mr Lukashenko knows what he wants, while we do not really know what we want.
As for Mr Berlusconi, however, he has revealed a lot about himself, because if ideal leadership is, for him, what Lukashenko is doing, it means it is a model of leadership which impresses him, and we can only fold our arms and express regret that such a leader is to be found among the 27 leaders of the countries of the European Union.
Mr President, as a long-term Belarus watcher, it is important that the EU remains engaged with Belarus, which is a medium-sized European country and which is becoming increasingly self-isolated and turning itself into a kind of Cuba of Europe. President Lukashenko, who is a quintessentially Homo sovieticus type, nevertheless understands fully what power politics are all about and therefore we need to have a reasonable EU-Belarus trade and political contact and relationship. I therefore do agree that the targeted sanctions need to be eventually lifted and a PCA eventually ratified.
So, after years of the EU isolating Belarus, I now agree that a pragmatic stick and carrot approach is the correct one. We must facilitate contacts with Belarus civil society and cheaper visa arrangements, and grant Belarus observer status in the Euronest Assembly, as well as access to the programmes of the Eastern Partnership.
We have made a generous start, and I now call upon Minsk to meet us halfway by improving its human rights and democracy record.
(DE) Mr President, the policy of the European Union towards Belarus is certainly an example of a sensible neighbourhood policy. We ought to thank the outgoing Commissioner, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, for her successful work in this regard.
Belarus certainly should be supported by the European Union in its reform process and also in its democratisation. However, the European Union and the Member States of the European Union should not be so arrogant as to believe that their own democratic standards should be a model for the rest of the world.
One thing is certain in relation to Belarus: if we want our relations with Russia to flourish, we will be obliged also to respect the historical and geopolitical interests of the Kremlin somewhere. That is probably the most sensitive issue in connection with European policy towards Belarus.
(PL) There has been talk here of the need for youth and cultural exchange between the Union and Belarus. I am afraid this will be very difficult. On 3 December, Tatiana Szapućko, spokesperson for the opposition organisation Young Front, had her name struck off the list of students at the Faculty of Law of the Belarusian State University. Why was her name removed? For taking part in a forum on the Eastern Partnership in Brussels. The university authorities took the view that she had left without their consent, and for this she was thrown out of the university.
Perhaps for a woman in Belarus, this is not all that dangerous, but for men thrown out of university in Belarus, the results can be much more painful, because military service there is treated as a punishment, as a substitute for prison. There are young soldiers, such as Franek Wieczorka, head of the youth organisation called the Belarusian Youth Front, and Ivan Szyła, also from the organisation Young Front, who are being persecuted during military service, where they are cut off from access to information, and this is treated as a punishment. We should fight against this and should support those who are punished in this way.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think it is extremely valuable that we have such strong support among all the European institutions for the approach towards Belarus.
It is, indeed, a very difficult partner, but it is our neighbour, a country with which we share borders. Some countries here have close and historic relations with the people there, so we must do our utmost to support the development towards democracy, human rights, the rule of law and market economy.
We are concerned about certain backlashes lately, for instance, the young student who was expelled. The Swedish Presidency has reacted very firmly in Minsk and also issued lots of statements: it is, of course, something that we deplore and it should not happen.
We have had lots of contact with civil society during this year. There was a conference just a few weeks ago in Brussels with civil society. I personally met opposition representatives in Stockholm a few weeks ago and there are continuous efforts to liaise with civil society and the opposition. They are weak but they are there and they need our support, and that support will continue.
I think Mr Godmanis' idea on the conference theme is a very interesting one. It certainly merits being explored to see if we can move forward.
This dual approach towards Belarus - the 'stick and carrot', as I think Mr Tannock called it - is hopefully the one that will succeed. It shows that we are truly committed, we stuck out our hands. We can show Mr Lukashenko and the Belarus regime that, if you move towards democracy, if you move towards respecting international values, there is another way for you. There is a way towards European integration; there is a way towards engagement with the European Union, towards visa facilitation and deepening of the Eastern Partnership.
Now it is up to them to respond. We have given them our hand and, with the full support of all the European institutions, please, Minsk, take it, because you and the Belarus people have a lot to win.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, in conclusion, I would like to stress that I found - and I am also speaking on behalf of Benita Ferrero-Waldner, of course - our exchanges today to be very frank and extremely useful. I wish to thank you for a constructive and forward-looking debate.
The EU is, in principle, ready to work closely with Minsk and support urgently needed political and economic reforms. Should there be significant steps from the Belarusian leadership in terms of democratisation, the EU would be prepared to see Belarus as a full member of the Eastern Partnership. In the meantime, the EU is, and will be, urging Belarus to take further irreversible steps towards democratic standards, without which our relationship cannot develop to its full potential. I sincerely hope that in 2010, we will be in a position to engage gradually and intelligently with Belarus and offer the Belarusian people a vision and tangible benefits of a close relationship with the EU.
The EU expects Belarus to take a series of accompanying measures in the area of democratic reforms, with a view to coming closer to the EU and together help expand the area of peace, stability and prosperity involving all six Eastern Partnership countries, as well as Russia, the EU's strategic partner.
There are five measures we expect Belarus to take resolutely and irreversibly.
Firstly, to ensure there is no backtracking on political prisoners and politically motivated criminal prosecution. Secondly, carry out a thorough reform of the electoral legislation in line with OSCE/ODIHR recommendations. Thirdly, embark upon the liberalisation of the media environment, uphold freedom of speech and of assembly. Fourthly, improve through regulatory and legislative measures working conditions for NGOs. Fifthly, abolish or declare a moratorium on the death penalty.
A significant move in showing Belarus' commitment to shared values would be the immediate introduction of a moratorium on the death penalty and its subsequent abolition as a crucial step forward on its path to Council of Europe membership. In its November conclusions, the Council of the EU urged Belarus to introduce a moratorium on the death penalty. Moreover, the Commission has carried out communication actions in the wake of the 10th International Day against the Death Penalty.
What could the EU do for Belarus? What is on offer? The Commission believes that the most productive approach to Belarus will be one based on pragmatism. Progressive EU engagement with Belarus needs to reflect positive steps by Belarus itself, but we also need to show flexibility. The November 2009 conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) allow the EU to offer incentives to Belarus for steps we want to see, while remaining true to our principles. This is what I mean by pragmatism.
Our message to Belarus is clear. First, the EU is ready to work closely with Minsk and support its political and economic development and, should there be significant positive steps from the Belarusian leadership, we would be prepared to see Belarus as a full member of the Eastern Partnership. This would entail the development of our relationship through the bilateral track of the EAP, the launching of a thorough political and economic dialogue, as well as enhanced sectoral cooperation.
In the meantime, Belarus was invited in May 2009 to join the multilateral dimension of the EAP. It is participating constructively at deputy minister level in the four multilateral forums - democracy and governance, economic integration, energy security and people-to-people contacts.
Secondly, we expect Belarus to take further irreversible steps towards democratic standards, without which our relationship cannot develop to its full potential.
Thirdly, the absence of a PCA is not only a loss to Belarus; it deprives us of a legal basis for structures like a formal human rights dialogue and addressing trade or energy transit issues. In the Commission, we continue to believe that the ratification of the PCA will be a useful step forward, but clearly we will continue to use this as an incentive lever to encourage further moves on the Belarusian side.
Fourthly, and lastly, the Commission has started working on the implementation of the November 2009 GAERC conclusions, and will come back to the Council of EU Ministers with proposals as soon as possible.
The debate is closed.
I have received seven motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Thursday, 17 December 2009).
Written statements (Rule 149)
Democratic values and respect for human rights and individual freedoms provide the bedrock on which the EU has been built. As our basic objective is to help neighbouring countries become democratic and Belarus is one of the last countries in Europe with an authoritarian regime, I believe that we should set very clear, stringent political conditions for Belarus before any political contact is established. Belarus has carried out some reforms, but they pale into insignificance in relation to the problems which exist, especially with regard to respect for human rights, press freedom and freedom of expression. Support must be given to the activists campaigning for respect for human rights and individual freedoms. I support the idea of establishing contacts with the opposition and am particularly in favour of individual contacts between citizens from the EU and Belarus. As a result of this, the citizens from Belarus will be able to speak freely with people who share democratic values. This would contribute to the development of civil society and facilitate a process of democratisation, which would enjoy popular support and be initiated by the people itself. This is the only way that a healthy democracy can be created where everyone's rights are respected. Therefore, the use of sanctions as a means of exerting pressure needs to be combined with facilitating contacts between citizens from the EU and Belarus.
I would like to welcome Belarus's constructive involvement in the Eastern Partnership process, as well as the fact that a human rights dialogue has been initiated between the EU and Belarus. During the past year, positive processes have been initiated in the country with the release of political prisoners, but we see that this process has since come to a standstill. This is due to problems with the registration of political parties and the authorisation of independent media and civil organisations. As a result, the EU was obliged to extend the travel restriction measures. I sincerely hope that Belarus will continue along the path of positive change it embarked on last year, thereby offering the opportunity for the EU also to be able to respond positively. Until then I think it is also important to consider whether we can move forward in the area of visa facilitation, as human contacts can make a major contribution to more political openness and the democratisation process as well.
When debating respect for human rights in Belarus and the decision of Member States to extend sanctions against some representatives of the Belarusian regime until October 2010, it should be said that the situation in Belarus is gradually changing.
In the outcome of the European Council of 17 November 2009, we read that new possibilities for dialogue and increasing cooperation between the European Union and Belarus have emerged. Wanting to encourage the authorities in Belarus to carry out reforms, the Member States agreed to a temporary lifting of sanctions on freedom of movement which had been applied to high-ranking representatives of the Belarusian authorities. The European Commission is preparing a directive to make it easier for Belarusians to obtain EU visas and an agreement on readmission.
However, we must not forget that human rights are still being violated in Belarus, and the promising and favourable steps taken since October 2008, such as the release of most political prisoners and the permission for distribution of two independent newspapers, are still not enough. A flagrant example of the violation of human rights is the continued use of the death penalty: Belarus is the only European country which still uses capital punishment, and in recent months, further death sentences have been passed.
Therefore, we address the following demands to the decision makers in Belarus: that, at least, they respect human rights, including introduction of a moratorium on carrying out the death sentence, amendment of electoral law and guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the media.


Adaptation of a number of instruments to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, "omnibus" Regulation, Part One - Adaptation of a number of instruments with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, "omnibus" Regulation, Part Three (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on
the report by Mr Szájer, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC, with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny - Part One - C6-0432/2007 -; and
the report by Mr Szájer, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC, with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny - Part Three - C6-0474/2007 - 2007/0282 (COD)).
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the 'comitology dossier' has two main features. On the one hand, it is extremely technical, and probably any common citizen would find it difficult to understand. On the other hand, it is very important since it concerns how Parliament exercises its control over implementing acts. The 2006 reform of the Comitology Decision introduced something called the 'regulatory procedure with scrutiny', giving Parliament a veto right on measures of general scope that amend a legal act adopted under codecision.
By the end of 2006, 26 acts identified as particularly urgent were already brought into conformity with the new procedure, which ensures a stronger role for Parliament, and I am happy to see that today we are here to welcome further progress.
Between November 2007 and February 2008 the Commission proposed to bring more than 220 acts into line with the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny. To facilitate Parliament and Council examination of these files, we opted for grouping proposals in a so-called 'omnibus' approach. Four omnibuses were adopted.
The Commission is now very pleased to see that a first-reading agreement is possible on the first and third omnibus proposals and that good and fair compromise solutions have been reached between the three institutions. I would like to thank in particular the rapporteur and the parliamentary committees which worked very hard and very rapidly.
The Commission would like to make the following declaration. In the context of the review of Directive 2005/36/EC, as provided in Article 60 of the Directive, the Commission will assess in particular the implementation of its delegated powers under the Article 61 derogation clause of the Directive.
The Commission strongly supports the political will to move ahead on this topic and the will of Parliament to move forwards as quickly as possible. We hope to see a strong commitment from the Council as well. I will raise this issue with the French presidency and I am confident that it will be active on this dossier. We will continue to cooperate closely with the two institutions to reach an agreement on the two remaining omnibus proposals.
rapporteur. - (HU) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I would like to begin by repeating what the Vice-President of the Commission said, namely that this really is a two-sided issue we are dealing with. On the one hand it is a highly technical matter - although I would add that it is our job to solve technical problems and carry out any related tasks, so we must understand these things. On the other, meanwhile, it provides a new opportunity for citizens, since the new procedure, the procedure involving scrutiny for the first time actually gives citizens the chance, through their freely and directly elected representatives, to scrutinise the implementing measures and normative measures of the European Commission.
You will have heard many stories, largely put about in eurosceptic circles, of how the European Commission and the European bureaucracy want to regulate a whole host of minutiae. We are all familiar with some of these - from the size of eggs or the colour of paprika, the horror stories abound. Of course we do not know how true any of these stories are, but in any case the myths surrounding the Brussels bureaucracy have proved persistent. One of the reasons why the myths have persisted is that until now the European Parliament did not have genuine and effective powers of scrutiny regarding the normative measures delegated to the Commission.
The present process, which will conclude with the two votes tomorrow, will enable Parliament at least partially to exercise this sort of scrutiny; from now on, these normative measures will be subject to political scrutiny. In terms of what is habitually referred to as the democratic deficit issue, I have to say that this is a significant step. It is also a significant step in terms of eliminating the democratic deficit without involving amendments to the Treaty. I have always done my best to achieve this, and so has Parliament; it was the agreement reached in 2006 between the European Commission and Parliament that served as the basis for the changes under discussion today. I have always supported the idea that we should not wait for the Lisbon Treaty to extend these powers to Parliament. There is no need to wait, since the agreement between the two institutions and the proposals now before us largely resolve these problems. Moreover, I doubt that anyone can say for sure today when the Lisbon Treaty will actually come into effect.
Parliament needs these powers. A word of warning, however: this is a huge task, and one that the Council has been carrying out for a great many years via the comitology committees. For Parliament it is a completely new function, and a great deal of work will be involved in ensuring that we are genuinely able to exercise the new powers assigned to us. Moreover, it is not just a case of being able to exercise these powers as the European Parliament; from now on it will actually be an obligation, since the citizens of Europe can call us to account as their elected representatives over the manner in which we deal with these matters. I would like to thank the Commission sincerely for putting forward these proposals, and I would like to draw attention to the fact that only twelve of the thirty, or rather forty-six or so acts included in 'List 3' have so far been submitted, and we would ask you to submit the remaining thirty-four acts as soon as possible so that we can deal with them. Negotiations with the Council on the first and third omnibus packages have been concluded successfully.
I have every confidence that the Council will continue this process - indeed the Council has given its commitment to do so - and if possible resolve matters and conclude the process by the end of this year. In order for this to happen, all of the institutions must of course continue cooperating with one another. Another reason why this is important is because in this case both the Commission and the Council are relinquishing important constitutional powers to Parliament. I could therefore also say how commendable this is, and how grateful we are to have been granted these powers. However, I sincerely believe that they have taken this step in the interests of democracy in the European Union, and in the interests of eliminating excessively bureaucratic procedures and ensuring a more efficient, more transparent and more democratic European Union. I thank the institutions for their cooperation, and I thank all of the committees for proceeding swiftly to enable Parliament to resolve this matter, at least with regard to the first and third omnibus proposals. Thank you for your attention.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (CS) Mr President, Commissioner Wallström, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission plays an irreplaceable role in implementing European legislation. Its task is to implement European legislation at Community level and to ensure that the legislation is complied with in individual Member States. Comitology is one of the key instruments for managing this process. Comitology is justifiable and has an irreplaceable role within the policy-making and law-making process. It was created as a response to the practical need to change and amend Community regulations, often rather technical, so that they fit the reality and the situation on the ground. However, this does not mean that the existing system is ideal. Within the framework of comitology, first of all we have to look for the balance between the Commission, the Council and/or Member States and the European Parliament.
The importance of the European Parliament and its role in adopting European legislation is irreplaceable. That said, we have to remember that the possibility of monitoring the implementation of legislative instruments is limited by time, technical aspects and knowledge. In my opinion, Parliament has too much involvement in the process, thereby adding more bureaucracy and jeopardising the whole process. Our aim should be exactly the opposite: decreasing bureaucracy. Hundreds of comitology committees, thousands of meetings and implementing acts hardly contribute to the transparency of comitology. In my opinion, there should be a higher degree of formalisation of the comitology system. There is no doubt that the whole process must be streamlined and simplified. Ladies and gentlemen, comitology, just like the Lisbon Treaty, is something the citizens do not understand. For the purposes of our debate on comitology we should therefore see the Irish 'no' as a warning.
Mr President, this evening Parliament is doing something new. I think that all the speakers, starting with the Commissioner, have highlighted the somewhat abstruse nature of comitology. The proof of this is that we do not have anyone from the public following this debate this evening, and if I had to explain to my electorate what I am doing here tonight at eleven o'clock, it would be very hard work.
I think that the various speakers have mentioned this difficulty, and I think that, with our concern to make the EU institutions a little more attractive, we will need to find some sort of procedure for explaining to citizens what we are actually discussing.
Of course, the package of measures that we are considering is quite broad. As the Commissioner said, there are four omnibus packages. We are only looking at the first and the third, and article by article we are seeing the problems that arise from the point of view of implementation. As the rapporteur and the other speakers said, this is a necessary exercise, but obviously we should try to clarify it.
Perhaps it is worth mentioning some of the subjects. For example, Council Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality of bathing water or Council Directive 91/271/EC concerning urban waste-water treatment. The procedure adopted will have practical consequences for citizens, but the question is how to make them aware of it.
I think that Mr Szájer has done a good job, that in Parliament we have tried to act with a sense of responsibility, that we are going to continue doing so and that the only thing that is going to remain for us to do is this part, which is conveying to citizens what we are really doing here, and this is quite difficult. I think that this will be our challenge, and, continuing what we have achieved and what we are doing this evening, I think that we will have to do that second part in the future so that the parliamentary debate then will not be as bleak as the one we are having this evening.
(PL) Mr President, the inclusion of the European Parliament in comitology procedures is necessary in view of the development of its legislative competences and especially as part of the codecision procedure envisaged in Article 251 of the Treaty. This is the direction followed by the Council Decision of 17 July 2006 and of Article 5a introducing the new procedure under which Parliament will decide jointly with the Council on the grounds for proposing certain implementing powers. The new 'regulatory procedure with scrutiny' will relate to measures of a general scope which seek to amend non-essential elements of a basic instrument adopted in accordance with codecision.
The Council Decision is of revolutionary significance for the course of the legislative process, as it enables Parliament to veto a Commission proposal relating to implementing powers. As a result it will be possible to modify a proposal or return to the legislative path. It is very important that the alignment package is adopted as quickly as possible, in order for the new procedure to be applied straight away to the existing acquis. I am therefore calling for us, in the forthcoming vote, to adopt the Commission's proposal covering a list of legislative instruments that are to be aligned to the new procedure along with amendments proposed by the competent parliamentary committees.
At the same time I would like to point out that what will be of crucial importance to the success of the current comitology reform is the way in which Parliament makes use of the potential that is appearing before it. The requirement for an absolute majority of votes to reject the Commission's proposal on implementing powers or extending the procedure caused by, for example, the need to translate documents into the 23 EU languages may have a negative impact on the progress of the procedure. We should also bear in mind that Parliament may become the target of enhanced pressure from various circles that have an interest in influencing the final shape of implementing powers. An extra challenge, both in general and for organisational reasons, will also be to take into consideration the enormous number of implementing instruments that will come before Parliament in the future.
rapporteur. - (HU) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, there is not much left for me to do other than to thank my fellow Members in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the other Committees for their close cooperation. I also thank everyone who worked alongside the Committee and provided me with assistance in this highly complicated and difficult matter. I am very pleased that we have managed to reach an agreement with the Council on this issue and hope that we can conclude the process at the first reading. I would also like to express the hope that this process will continue at the same rhythm and tempo in the case of the second and fourth omnibus proposals - the fourth is possibly somewhat tougher and trickier. Negotiations on these have already begun, and I have every confidence that there is a good chance of concluding this process by the end of the year or even sooner, and that the official process can get under way.
The Lisbon Treaty will introduce this system in the context of secondary legislation, but it would not have been right to waste two years without the comitology procedure. I am convinced that Parliament needs this learning process; it needs to learn how to handle these matters. One speaker mentioned that it is crucial that we ourselves should be able to distinguish between important and non-important matters; the role of the legislature is really to concentrate on vital matters and for this reason it needs to delegate certain powers to the executive, in other words to the Commission, but we must retain the possibility and the right to scrutinise implementing measures drawn up by it. The comments made have been incorporated into the proposals. Thank you very much for your attention, and I wish every success to Parliament, the Commission and the Council in carrying out the tasks that are still to be done, given that this piece of legislation is number sixty-something and the bulk of the acts are still to be dealt with, and I hope that the matter can be resolved in the second half of the year. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you for listening.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday 18 June 2008.