23. AIDS (vote)
- Before the vote on paragraph 19:
Mr President, as sometimes happens, a few words get lost in the negotiations or between them and the printed word, and with the support of all the groups involved, I should like to move the addition after paragraph 19 of the following new paragraph: 'Calls for greater investment in the development and provision of paediatric formulations for children;'.
- The oral amendment was accepted.


9. Implementation of the Services Directive (


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 12.05 a.m.)


Composition of Parliament: see Minutes


Council Question Time
The next item is Question Time (B6-0437/2006).
We will be taking the following questions to the Council.
Subject: Provision of services and freedom of movement for families with children
European families are protesting in increasing numbers against the discrimination to which they are subjected in connection with the provision of services and exercising their right to freedom of movement within the EU because they are accompanied by children under the age of 15.
Recent articles in the Greek press have taken a positive view of the exclusion of children from commercial public premises such as hotels, restaurants, etc.
What measures will the Council take to eliminate discrimination and age 'racism' against children, adolescents and their families? Are there plans to harmonise the requirements in regard to the provision of services and guaranteeing freedom of movement within the EU to prevent the infringement of the rights of young Europeans and their families?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, in reply to the question the Council would first like to remind everyone that Article 18(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community states: 'every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect'. As the honourable Member certainly knows, the Commission, as the body that monitors the Treaty, must ensure that the provisions of the Treaty and the rules and regulations made by the institutions pursuant to it are complied with. That being the case, the question by the honourable Member should really be put to the Commission.
In July this year the Commission published a communication aiming at an EU strategy on children's rights with the purpose of promoting and protecting children's rights effectively in internal and external policies of the European Union and supporting measures taken in this area by the Member States. Decisions on child and family policy proper are taken at national level.
(EL) Madam President, I too wish to take my turn in reminding the Council representative that the Commission may design the strategy, but the application of it is undertaken by the Member States. In the Council, all the Member States must establish what the situation is and what the problems are of families moving with children; that is why I put this question to the Council, in knowledge of the Treaties and the new Commission communication.
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, we all have laws to prevent discrimination against all population groups and ages, such as the Racial Equality Directive and the Directive on discrimination in employment and occupation. They incorporate rules on such areas as the prohibition of discrimination in many everyday situations.
As for the examples given of, for example, restaurant culture by the honourable Member, we do have to remember that citizens of the Member States, in addition to the Council, have, as consumers and, when it comes down to it, those who are paying for these services, also have considerable powers of influence on what sort of culture should evolve from the perspective of families with children.
(DE) Madam President, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that this is a problem not only in Greece, but also in Austria, where it is positively prevalent, and where hotels count it as one of their main selling points that they allow no children, or will not accommodate families with them.
What I would like to know is whether something can be done about this, at any rate as regards advertising. There are, after all, other areas in which advertising can be restricted, and that might be one possibility.
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, there has of course been much discussion in the area of advertising relating to children, especially with regard to marketing and what sort of marketing and in what situation it is suitable when it is aimed at children. As concerns the example given by the honourable Member asking the additional question with regard to hotels, I would say again what I said in my previous answer, that obviously consumer organisations and paying customers can have a say in what sort of services should be on offer.
Subject: Reinforcement of FRONTEX
Frontex, the body responsible for monitoring the Union's external borders that was set up last year, has commenced its operations, but is under-resourced and notoriously ineffective.
Will the Council propose the adoption of measures to increase the effectiveness of Frontex, whether by cooperation between Member States or by allocating additional resources at Community level?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, it is Council Regulation of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union that provides for the establishment of Frontex and its tasks, structure and the requirements pertaining to its financial administration. Under the Regulation, the Council is given information concerning the Agency's action programme, the general and special risk analyses that it prepares, an annual general report and the Agency's budget. Measures to amend the Regulation's provisions may only be proposed by the Commission.
It is primarily the task of Frontex's Management Board to approve measures relating to its organisational structure, staffing policy and action programme, and the Council takes no part in it.
It is still the responsibility of the institutions of the EU to evolve Community policy on the control of external borders and relevant legislation. Close coordination between the agency and the institutions must therefore be assured, and there are arrangements in existence for this purpose under the Frontex Regulation. Regarding this, I would refer you to the relevant Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams. Its purpose is to enhance operative activities undertaken by the Agency and promote solidarity between Member States and the Community during a crisis.
The European Council proposed last December that the Member States, the Council and the Commission should take certain measures before the end of the year to improve practical cooperation among the Member States. These included strengthened control and monitoring of the EU's southern maritime border and the Medsea study on the Mediterranean Coastal Patrols Network, which Frontex has now completed.
In recent months the Council, for example in its session on 24 July and at the informal ministerial meeting in September, has been paying particular attention to improving operative cooperation between the Member States and Frontex, and, in particular, the situation in the Mediterranean region and Africa. On these occasions such themes as Frontex's role and its participation in operative activities, especially in the Mediterranean and with regard to the African situation, were discussed. The Council was satisfied with the measures implemented by Frontex and the Commission and stressed that operative cooperation should continue to be developed further.
At the end of October the Council also adopted its conclusions on strengthening the external maritime border in the south. In its conclusions it urged Frontex to promote a feasibility study on the establishment of a European Surveillance System which, in its initial phase, would cover the whole of the southern maritime border of the Community and the Mediterranean Sea. The Council also asked Frontex to consider setting up regional centres with links to one another, which would be at Frontex's disposal in operational matters in different maritime areas or sections thereof.
The Council, however, does not have to propose that appropriations should be granted for Frontex's budget for additional action.
According to Article 33 of Council Regulation establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union and the Hague Programme, the work of Frontex will be assessed with reference to a Commission evaluation before the end of next year.
(ES) Madam President, the Council's reply has reassured me, and I am going to say something surprising: Frontex has worked. Despite being at an experimental stage, its work in the Canary Islands, in the large area of sea surrounding the Canary Islands, has been effective.
The concern is the precariousness of the institutions and the lack of economic and financial resources. The Presidency has referred to that, but the specific question I would like to ask is whether you believe that it will be possible to continue the Frontex operation in the Atlantic after 1 January, and whether the Council believes it is worth spending money on resources, on maintaining this Agency, which, I would repeat, has worked, is still working, and is proving to be effective.
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, first it is obviously encouraging to hear that Frontex has been successful. While we admit that it has also had some problems, or at least challenges, we have to remember that the Agency is still very young and, at the same time, it has its administrative structure and tasks to attend to. Moreover, it has already been involved in very many operations both in the Mediterranean Sea and elsewhere. Obviously, whether the scope and effectiveness of this operation can continue also depends on additional financing.
(DE) Madam President, the President-in-Office of the Council spoke about how difficult it is to get funding for Frontex. Frontex is being supported. Is the Council also considering doing something to relieve the burden, for example mounting information campaigns in the countries of origin, in order to make potential migrants aware of the possible consequences of illegal immigration or of the other options available for legal immigration? Is it also considering reducing the load by taking action that would make it impossible, in future, to legalise illegal immigrants in the way in which they have been?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, one very crucial question, which relates generally to illegal immigration or immigration as a whole, is obviously the extent to which we cooperate with countries of origin and transit. Recently in the Union the aim has been to focus special attention on points of contact between immigration itself and development, working on the notion that we should be able to enhance cooperation with countries of departure so that the pressures on people migrating are also lessened in those places.
Of course, one area of this cooperation with countries of origin is to provide information on what is actually possible and what is not. In November the next high level conference between the EU and African countries will be held in Tripoli and the main theme there will be immigration.
I have two points. First of all, a few months ago we were hearing about problems around the hosting of the agency in Poland: inadequate provision of accommodation and so on. Have those problems been resolved?
Secondly, will the Finnish Presidency pledge to support and to persuade other Member States to accept the amendments that the European Parliament is about to vote to the budget of FrontEx? This is Amendment 836, to restore the sum as proposed by the Commission, i.e., not to follow the Council cuts and to put even more resources in reserve. Will the Finnish Presidency support that increase in resources?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, Frontex's ability to deal with these illegal immigration situations, and that of the Union generally, naturally depends very much on what level of commitment there is in the Member States. This has been discussed recently in detail at various Union levels, most recently at the EU Lahti Summit last Friday, but this debate is still going on, so in that respect it is still hard to give an absolutely precise answer to this question.
Subject: Sharing information on convicted paedophiles
What is the state of play in the Council regarding the proposed 'Framework Decision on the recognition and enforcement in the EU of prohibitions arising from convictions for sexual offences committed against children'? It would mean that if a paedophile or child molester was disqualified from working with children after conviction for a sex attack or involvement in child pornography in one Member State, that information would be shared so that their name could be entered on other national sex offender registers and the ban enforced EU-wide.
Why has the Council apparently been unable so far to agree on this important proposal which the European Parliament backed in June 2006 and which would give a practical example to Europe's citizens of the EU's valuable role in combating crime and increasing security? Has the Council abandoned its declared goal of prioritising the fight against the sexual exploitation of children?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium with a view to the adoption by the Council of a Framework Decision on the recognition and enforcement in the European Union of prohibitions arising from convictions for sexual offences committed against children of November 2004 is at present being debated by working groups in the Council. Most recently it was discussed by the criminal case cooperation team in October, just a week ago. An examination of the initiative also forms part of the discussions which the Council working groups are holding on other proposals, such as that for a Framework Decision on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings and that for a Council Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States. There are thus two other proposals for framework decisions on the table.
The aim which these instruments have in common is to create structures to ensure that details on someone's criminal background are available generally and readily. When all the Member States have eventually implemented these acts in their national legislation, it should be easier to prevent a convicted individual from working with children or committing crimes against children once again. The Council is therefore continuing to debate these proposals for framework decisions.
It seems to me that the Council is going nowhere fast on these proposals. Nearly two years ago we had an ambitious programme from the Commission in response to strong public interest in ensuring that criminals, like sex offenders, are not the ones who exploit borders and profit from them. It seems to me that Member States are not getting their act together on this. I do not understand how we can tell our public that the EU is effective in combating crime if the Council is so slow in deciding on these top-priority measures to make sure that criminals are truly tracked, wherever they go.
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, the protection of children, especially from the possibility of new assaults by those convicted of sex crimes, is obviously vitally important. There are, however, many very practical problems, as well as problems relating to principles, attached to these proposals for framework decisions, for example, the fact that this ban on occupation principle does not even exist in all the Member States. We therefore need to look for a way of dealing with the problem which can be applied in all the Member States of the Union.
(PT) Madam President-in-Office of the Council, thank you very much for the information. My question is very precise and direct, so that we can judge your position.
Does the Council, that is to say, the Finnish Presidency, not believe that citizens having access to personal data on those convicted of paedophilia or sexual violence against young people is an excellent tool in the fight against crime of this nature?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, this is an aim we all share: children can be protected from convicted individuals and there are different ways of doing that in the Member States. For example, in my country there is a system in place where an employer has the right to obtain the criminal records of those seeking or applying for certain kinds of job and to use them to consider whether the person is suitable for the job. Such jobs, however, are very precisely defined. There are different ways of doing this in the Member States, and that is one reason why progress in this matter has been slow in the opinion of many Members of Parliament.
I should like to refer to a specific case as a means of illustrating that the sharing of information is not enough. Paul Hunter Redpath is a convicted paedophile who served the custodial part of his sentence in my constituency of Northern Ireland and then recently took refuge in the Republic of Ireland, in breach of the probation part of his sentence. He can now live there freely, and is unable to be arrested, whereas in Northern Ireland the penalty for breaching his probation order would be an immediate return to prison.
Is this case not a clear indication that full extradition arrangements are needed, otherwise justice will be evaded and full protection not afforded to the vulnerable? Can the President-in-Office accept that proper extradition is the optimum requirement?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, this Question Time slot is obviously not about what I can personally endorse, but what sort of discussions and decisions the Council should aspire to. The Council, however, now intends to proceed in accordance with the assimilation principle, which means that a Member State would be obliged to attach to convictions in a foreign court legal effects that are equivalent to those which they attach to national convictions, although this is ultimately very much to do with wider cooperation on justice and home affairs and how we can otherwise make progress in the area of mutual recognition of convictions and judgments and the matter of extradition.
Since its author is not present, Question No 4 lapses.
Subject: Aviation sector
Can the European Council outline what new measures it intends to pursue to improve passenger safety on European airlines in light of the ongoing threat of international terrorism?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security represents the Community's current legal framework in the area of civil aviation security. The Regulation, which was made as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks, has been in force since January 2003.
To correct the problems which emerged in the implementation of this Regulation, the Commission put forward a proposal in September 2005 to replace the Regulation with a new one. In March of this year the Council adopted a general approach on the Commission proposal. In June the European Parliament adopted its position at first reading, which contained 85 amendments. On the basis of this, the Council achieved political consensus on the proposal on 12 October. The adopted text is to be formally reinforced as a common position in a future Council session and submitted to the European Parliament, so that consensus can be swiftly reached at second reading.
In consideration of the security problems experienced by the United Kingdom in August this year, the Council hopes that the institutions will reach consensus on the new Regulation as quickly as possible. The impact of the new security measures recently introduced by the Commission and its committee for civil aviation security should, in addition, be monitored continually.
Is the Council satisfied that there is enough cooperation between EU Member States in the fight against international terrorism? Do you agree that Europol and the EU Anti-Terror Office are being adequately funded?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, naturally we can always improve our efforts in the fight against terrorism. A lot of measures have of course been taken, especially in recent years, but there is always definitely room for improvement.
(LT) Madam President-in-Office of the Council, most of us arrive here by air. I cannot remember even one case over recent years when aircraft were not delayed by a half-hour or an hour. Usually, the reason given is security issues. Could the reason be - and perhaps this really is the case - poorly organised and performed work?
Will we still be able to verify whether security requirements are truly being applied after adoption of this document?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, as well as decision-making it is obviously very important that we monitor implementation and also continuously monitor changes in the operational environment. It is also vital, of course, that we are able to establish identical rules for different airports and different Member States. Obviously, good predictability will definitely enable us in everyday practical circumstances to tell beforehand how much time security checks, for example, will take up and thereby reduce the amount of inconvenience caused to passengers. I nevertheless think that we who travel very regularly also need to get used to the fact that air travel has become a more challenging occupation than before.
(DE) Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I would like - in my capacity as rapporteur on the extension of the powers of the European Air Safety Agency - to report to you that the Committee on Transport and Tourism has, with reference to this subject, also discussed the possibility of entrusting the EASA with security functions. I would be interested to know what the Presidency of the Council thinks about that idea.
Now for my second question. Something that has struck me personally is that the privatisation of security checks at airports has had the consequence that these are less able to deal with extreme situations than, for example, the police. Would it not make sense to reverse this privatisation and have security checks carried out once more by state agencies?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, obviously it is good for the Council to look at and discuss, for example, how the work of the European Aviation Safety Agency needs to be made more effective, but of course powers and competencies can only be transferred to it to the extent that the Member States say they are willing to endorse that. I find it very hard to believe that the speed of a security check should depend on whether we are dealing with a private player or a state institution. The question is more about targeting resources and how much there is in the way of resources generally. It is obvious that airports, especially at busy times, must have problems coping with large numbers of passengers.
Subject: The status of the Irish language
The Irish language becomes an official working language of the EU institutions on 1 January 2007.
Can the European Council make a comprehensive statement as to the preparations that have been put in place to guarantee that the EU institutions will have all the necessary systems in place so as to ensure that the Irish language becomes, in practice, an official working language of the European Union on 1 January next?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, at the request of the Irish Government, the Council altered the rules on language in June 2005 and added the Irish language to the list of official and working languages of the European Union institutions. The Council decided that the institutions would not have to draft all legal provisions in Irish or publish them in this language in the Official Journal of the European Union. This decision is therefore a departure from the rules. It will remain in force for five years and that period may be renewed. It was also decided that the derogation would not apply to the regulations made in the codecision procedure.
In accordance with the decision to add Irish to the list of working languages, the Council has taken all the necessary practical steps to ensure that there is due implementation of the decisions as from 1 January 2007, when the Regulation comes into force.
I thank the President-in-Office for her reply. Can I take it that, apart from the derogation mentioned, the Irish language will be given equal treatment with all other languages of this Parliament?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, as I said, the Irish language has been added to the list of the official and working languages of the European Union on the strength of the derogation which I have just referred to. Parliament will itself also have the right to decide how it will in practice implement this. When I said, however, that the Council has taken all the necessary steps to implement the decision, that refers to many sorts of practical issues and in my first answer I did not want to describe in detail everything that will be taking place there, but everything that this decision requires.
- (LT) I have a question for Mrs Lehtomäki concerning the future; while having 21 official languages in the European Union does, of course, reflect our precious national diversity, it is, on the other hand, becoming costly and increasingly complex.
What do the Council and the country holding the Presidency think about the future? Will this circle continue to expand or will some measures perhaps be applied to simplify language-related procedures?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, as the honourable Member says, linguistic diversity is central to European culture and the pluralism of European cultures. It has to be admitted, however, that for practical reasons and reasons of costs, the Council, where it concerns informal meetings, has more limited arrangements for languages or interpreting and there are sometimes just two, occasionally five or six, languages used. In fact the system has worked very well in practice.
Subject: Tightening up of press censorship in China
The Chinese authorities have recently imposed tighter curbs on the foreign press, making it subject to strict internal rules. News circulated by foreign press agencies is first to be checked and, if deemed necessary, censored, the new rules explicitly state, in order not to jeopardise the stability, national unity and sovereignty of the country. This is yet another instance of violation of human rights. The Commission has already voiced its concern and intends to raise the issue in future contacts with China.
Will the Council be doing the same, and what measures does it propose to take against this totally unjustified press censorship?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, like the honourable Member, the Council is worried about tighter press censorship in China. At all the rounds of the EU-China human rights dialogue held twice a year, the European Union has systematically and repeatedly urged China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which contains rules on freedom of expression. It has also encouraged China to lift travel restrictions on foreign journalists and made other demands that relate to interviewing Chinese citizens. This issue was raised at the round of talks on 19 October in Beijing as part of the EU-China human rights dialogue.
(NL) Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, when the freedom of the press is curbed in some poor African country, then the Council is the first to denounce this in the sharpest terms and to threaten sanctions. When it happens in China, people simply express their concern. This has all the hallmarks of double standards. My question is specifically: will the violation of the freedom of press in China once again feature on the agenda at the next EU-China summit? Secondly, what specific measures will you be taking in order to actually demand that China's freedom of press and human rights in general be upheld?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, the Foreign Ministers of the country to hold the presidency and China met at the ASEM Summit in Helsinki on 10 September. At the time the matter of freedom of the press was in the limelight and the discussions between the Foreign Ministers devoted much time to this. We might therefore say that the European Union's reaction is just as swift as when it talks to other countries, and in a similar vein.
At the start of September, there was a summit meeting held between the European Union and China and at this meeting the question of human rights was also discussed generally.
Subject: EU Fundamental Rights Agency
Can the European Council make a statement as to the state of progress on setting up the new EU Fundamental Rights Agency, and could it specify the likely powers that this agency will have?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, at its meeting in June 2006 the European Council welcomed the progress that had been made in talks relating to the proposal put forward by the Commission in July last year for a Regulation establishing a European Agency for Fundamental Rights and a proposal for a Council decision empowering the European Agency for Fundamental Rights to pursue its activities in areas referred to under the third pillar in the Treaty on European Union, which is to say cooperation on justice and home affairs. The European Council asked for the necessary measures to be implemented as soon as possible, so that the Agency could be set up and so that it could start operations on 1 January 2007.
In accordance with the European Council conclusions, the Finnish Presidency held a number of bilateral meetings in July, August, September and October with the aim of resolving the main question still unanswered, namely extending the work of the Agency to areas covered by the third pillar in the Treaty on European Union. At a Council session in early October the Presidency presented a review of the talks that had been held and asked for support for the idea of extending the work of the Agency to areas covered by the third pillar in the Treaty on European Union, but in a more restricted format than in the Commission's original proposal. The majority of the delegations that presented their view supported this approach by the Presidency, although some wondered whether a proper legal basis for the move would be found. The Presidency is continuing to look at the options and will put forward an interim proposal to the delegations in the near future.
As regards the Agency's competence, the aim of the Agency is to provide advice and expertise on fundamental rights to Community institutions, bodies and agencies when they are applying Community law, and in this way help them guarantee a respect for fundamental rights when they implement measures or determine policy within the context of their competences.
There is general consensus that establishing such an agency would create added value for EU policy on human rights and increase its coherence. The Agency will also be the main point of contact in the European Union for matters relating to fundamental rights. It will discharge its duties, complementing the work of the Council of Europe and in synergy with it, if the decisions on establishing it are taken.
The points you have raised reflect the concern that many of us in Parliament have that, once we propose this agency, the initial role we had envisaged for it will be diluted until it ends up as a think-tank or a contact point that would merely be distributing information from one Member State to another, rather than taking a leading role in defending fundamental rights. Maybe you could enlighten us as to whether that is a true interpretation of what you have been outlining concerning the bilateral meetings.
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, first it has to be said that it is intended that this Agency should be an advisory, expert body. We also of course believe, however, that it would be difficult to justify to our citizens the establishment of a Fundamental Rights Agency which would be denied the right to exercise the key competences necessary to do its job and undertake action under the third pillar. Accordingly, the work on this issue continues.
It seems to me that the Member States are muddling their way through to creating an agency that will not have within its responsibilities the very subject area where EU action is most likely to cause problems with regard to human rights.
I have a further question: does the Council not agree that we seem to be creating more and more agencies, like confetti sprinkled around the Member States, so that everybody has one, rather than when there is a real need - not so much this one, perhaps, but many of the others that have been created? All of them have a top-heavy structure with a management board with representation from every Member State and an administration that is sometimes smaller than the management board.
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, perhaps there is an aim sometimes and in some contexts to do this. As the country to hold the presidency, however, we have tried to aim for an administrative structure that is as light as possible. With regard to the Fundamental Rights Agency, however, as I said at the start, there is positive consensus that it is necessary. Accordingly, we have to work hard to ensure that the decisions are taken, that the Agency can start to function as from 1 January, and that it has competence in key areas of its operation.
Subject: EU- Iranian relations
Can the European Council make a statement on the present state of play with regard to EU-Iranian relations, addressing in particular the issue of the future of the nuclear industry in Iran?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, the Council is committed to doing more to build long-term relations with Iran based on trust and cooperation. Improved relations will mean progress in all the problematic issues, among which are human rights, terrorism, Iran's attitude to the peace process in the Middle East and local matters there, and Iran's nuclear programme.
In the matter of Iran's nuclear industry, the Council has many a time said it was committed to a diplomatic solution, which would take account of the international concern about Iran's nuclear programme, but at the same time confirms Iran's right to the peaceful utilisation of nuclear power in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Regarding this, the Council stated on 17 October that it greatly valued the perseverance with which High Representative Javier Solana has since June encouraged Iran to respond to the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency's governing board and the UN Security Council and continued talks on long-term arrangements.
The EU views seriously the IAEA's evaluation that it has not been able to make any progress in almost four years of continued close monitoring in its efforts to confirm the accuracy and scope of Iran's announcements regarding the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.
The EU is also very worried that Iran has not ended all its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, as the IAEA's governing board and the UN Security Council have asked. The Security Council stated in its Resolution 1696 that it intended to implement relevant measures under Article 41 unless Iran complied with the demand. The Council accordingly is of the opinion that, if Iran continues its uranium enrichment activities, the Union will have no other alternative but to back talks on these sanctions. The Council this month stated that the door to the negotiating chamber was still open for Iran, and urged the country strongly to opt for the positive approach that had been proposed for it.
The EU's High Representative put forward to Iran on 6 June proposals drawn up by six countries. These far-reaching proposals would form a basis for a long-term agreement and would give Iran everything it needs to develop its current civil nuclear energy sector, and they also take account of international concerns. Opting for this positive approach would prepare the way for new relations with Iran, which could be based on mutual respect and extended cooperation in politics and economic matters. The Council hopes that progress can be made along this enlightened path.
I can see that you are trying to have confidence-building measures between Europe and Iran, to try to better relations between the two of them and act as honest broker in this serious situation; but the idea of sanctions does not really work. It did not work in Iraq and it is not going to work in Iran. It is quite a wealthy, oil-rich country and they will just carry on. It may affect them somewhat, but it is not going to affect them that much in the long run.
There are certain issues that you touched on yourself. One of these is the shipment of heroin out of Afghanistan through Iran, and considering that there are about three million heroin addicts in Iran and they have lost about 3000 troops on the border trying to stop this going on ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, the discussion on possible sanctions obviously relates to the fact that the UN Security Council's Resolution 1696 is something the European Union is also committed to.
Drugs trafficking is linked to the general situation in Afghanistan, which could even be the topic of a separate question. The Union is committed long-term to the diverse development of Afghanistan, as well as the peacekeeping operation and crisis management in that country, so that the production of drugs is kept in check there.
Subject: EU facilitation for trade as a confidence-building measure between India and Pakistan
In my report on EU-India Trade and Economic Relations, I called on 'both India and Pakistan to further reduce administrative impediments to implementing trade-related confidence-building measures and for the EU to offer technical assistance, if required, in this regard'. Similarly, Council Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 highlights regional cooperation as a 'priority area' for assistance and an important sector for economic cooperation.
What role does the Council believe trade could play in bringing India and Pakistan closer to a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir question? Was this issue discussed at the recent EU-India Summit in Helsinki and what conclusions were reached? Could the Council outline any programmes, or proposals for programmes, that would support trade-related confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan, with specific reference to Kashmir and post-earthquake reconstruction, as well as supporting closer economic integration in SAARC in general?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, the Council agrees that trade could have major significance in bringing India and Pakistan closer together.
In its conclusions in February 2004 the Council repeated that it supported efforts to promote regional cooperation within the framework of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and especially the agreement on establishing a free trade zone in South Asia by the year 2006. The EU is pleased with the recently signed South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), but understands that some Member States of SAARC still have unresolved bilateral issues. Resolving these would give the Member States of the Association the opportunity to derive full benefit from the agreements they are signatories to.
Generally speaking, the EU still supports all the efforts being made to facilitate trade in multilateral contexts as they are an important way to strengthen trade and investment links between the different countries.
The decision by the SAARC ministerial council to confer on the EU the role of observer is a splendid opportunity to develop cooperation between SAARC and the EU. Cooperation between the two was discussed at the Seventh EU-India Summit in Helsinki on 13 October.
The EU wants to improve the practical support it gives to SAARC. The Commission has already drafted a programme on economic cooperation with SAARC. The programme covers facilitation of trade, standards and cooperation between new businesses. The aim is to promote trade within the region by aiding the implementation of SAFTA, and this, it is hoped, will provide the impetus for improved political relations in the region. The SAARC Secretariat and the Member States of the EU intend to adopt this programme in the near future.
The Union is encouraging broad dialogue between India and Pakistan and hopes that trading and other relations will develop favourably, because that would promote stability in the whole region. We welcome the fact that there have been moves to increase trust between India and Pakistan recently, as a result of which freer contacts between people, direct bus and train connections and visits by members of parliament and sports teams have become possible.
The Indian and Pakistani presidents met in Havana this September. Relations between the two countries were discussed at general level at a summit meeting held on 13 October.
First of all I would like to thank the Council Presidency for the very detailed response to the question I tabled. I would, however, like one further specific piece of information. This goes back to my original question as to whether the particular issue in relation to Pakistan/India and Kashmir was actually specifically discussed at the EU Summit with India in Helsinki. The reason I ask that is because both those nations are having detailed discussions at Foreign Secretary level on 14 and 15 November. Is there a specific message to them from the Council?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, I was indeed present most of the time at this summit, but I do not remember how the Kashmir question arose. I have had it confirmed to me, however, that this question was touched upon as part of the issue of regional stability and the situation in the region.
(LT) Madam President-in-Office, I have a question in relation to next week's visit of the delegation of the European Parliament to Kashmir by invitation of the Indian government.
What do you think the major states, primarily the United States and Russia, contribute to solving the problem of Kashmir and what else could the European Union do in this context?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, regarding this question, as with many others that have been raised in this Chamber today, it has to be said that, as it concerns an issue between the two countries, it is essential that the parties themselves actively seek a solution. The Union and the other great powers can indeed support this process. As, however, I am answering questions here mainly on behalf of the Council, it is impossible for me to take a very strong view on behalf of the United States of America.
Subject: Labour camps and violation of workers' rights
In July 2006 the Italian police, in cooperation with Polish law enforcement authorities, closed down labour camps in southern Italy in which Polish workers were being kept by Italian employers under conditions which failed to meet basic health and hygiene standards or comply with basic labour law in Italy. Further investigations have revealed that this was not an isolated example and that workers in other regions of Italy and other EU Member States have encountered similar practices (failure to respect labour law provisions)
Will the Council take action to punish those responsible for this breach of workers' rights and will it take effective measures to prevent the establishment of such labour camps within EU territory in future?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, the honourable Member raises an important issue in this question. The Council, and the Council since the amendments made to the Treaty, together with the European Parliament have delivered an extensive Community code in the area of safety and security at work. The Member States are responsible for implementing this code. The Council welcomes the fact that in the case referred to in the honourable Member's question, the Italian and Polish law enforcement agencies cooperated to close down the work camps referred to. Although we, like the honourable Member, are concerned about this, it has to be said that responsibility for overseeing implementation of Community legislation in the Member States lies with the Commission, not the Council.
(PL) Madam President, I have a question for the Presidency. Would it not be possible to activate mechanisms, perhaps through EUROJUST, that would facilitate the creation of a special monitoring unit, particularly in cases of suspected cooperation between local authorities, and even local police, and the organisers of criminal activities, such as the labour camps for citizens of Central and Eastern Europe?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, the Community code that exists for this sector and the secondary legislation that has been added to it demands a guarantee of equal treatment of nationals of other Member States with regard to working conditions. It is a question of monitoring it, which is the task of the Member States' own authorities. In accordance with the principles of the rule of law and good governance, in the Union we have to expect these supervisory bodies also to act in accordance with the regulations, and insist on it.
- (LT) Mrs Lehtomäki, I would like to ask whether such camps in fact create a source of restriction for the free movement of persons. This is the situation the old Member States were in after the introduction of a transitional period for the new ones. By applying such a transitional period in Romania and Bulgaria, is it not encouraging illegal work?
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Madam President, the Member States take decisions on whether to apply transition periods for new Member States regarding the free movement of the workforce. There were also Member States which applied a period of transition in the previous round of enlargement, but no longer do so in this new round. The reason is the perception that it is still better for a workforce to move within the framework of common European rules than create arrangements for derogations. As I said in my answer to a previous question, equal treatment of the workforce is very well regulated, but of course we have to pay more and more attention to implementation and supervision.
(DE) Madam President, my criticism is not directed at you, for I hold the way you run Question Time in high regard, but I really would like you to cast your mind back to Monday, when we determined the order in which business was to be conducted this week. The Conference of Presidents envisaged that Question Time would last one and a half hours; then the President reduced it to an hour. Several Members protested at this, and there was no vote on it, and so I have worked on the assumption that we have available to us for Question Time the hour and a half that we are rightly due.
I would like to ask whether the Council might remain for another quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, or is there a trade union for Council presidencies that forbids them from answering questions after seven in the evening? Questions to the Council used to begin after 9 p.m, and that worked like a dream, with the Council staying until the following day. To sum up, I think there is something wrong with this way of going about things.
Mr Posselt, much as I am delighted by your compliment, you are wrong about our debate on Monday, since it concerned the agenda rather than the Rules of Procedure, and it was the agenda that was the subject of a vote. You can check that again in the Minutes.
We should all take Question Time seriously - or more seriously than we do - as an important prerogative of Members, and we should all work together to ensure that it is not dropped from the agenda too frequently.
Questions which had not been answered for lack of time would receive written answers (see Annex).
That concludes Question Time.
(The sitting was suspended at 7.05 p.m and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)


1. Democratic Republic of Congo: the case of Floribert Chebeya Bahizire (


Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes


11. Protection of workers against asbestos (codified version) (vote)
- Mayer report


3. Application of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System (vote)
- Report: Coelho
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - (PT) Just three brief remarks if I may: a thank-you, a warning and a point of information. I should like to thank all those MEPs from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and all the political groups, whose goodwill enabled this report to be adopted quickly. I should like, too, to thank the Portuguese Government - and in particular Secretary of State José Magalhães - for taking the initiative and putting forward this system whereby new Member States that fulfil the Schengen assessment criteria do not have to remain unjustly suspended and can join the system immediately.
Secondly, speaking on behalf of Parliament as its rapporteur, I would like to sound a warning to the Council and the Commission. In our opinion, this transitional measure must never be allowed to hinder the rapid conclusion of SIS II, which must not be delayed and must remain a priority in view of the value-added and important innovation it encompasses for our collective security.
Third and lastly, a point of information. I should like to draw the attention of the Council and the Commission to the need to exert pressure on the Member States. Each Member State is responsible for getting ready to enter the system and to remove internal borders. Entering the Schengen system means that we have mutual trust when it comes to monitoring our external borders. During this Schengen assessment process there is no place for political agreements between governments to water down criteria and requirements. This is not an exercise in sympathy. This is about our shared security, and the security of Europe's citizens is not something to be dealt with lightly.


Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Leinen, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - C6-0202/2007 -.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, on 27 June this year the Commission presented a proposal, based on Article 191 of the EC Treaty, which aims to improve and adapt Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the status and funding of political parties at European level.
This proposal was followed by a report which evaluated the application of the Regulation. The corresponding resolution was adopted by the European Parliament on 23 March 2006. The Commission's proposal introduces a new element: the possibility of funding European political foundations bearing in mind that these have an important role to play in underpinning and promoting the activities and objectives of the political parties at European level.
Since the political foundations are closely affiliated with the European political parties, it is proposed that they must submit their application for funding through the political party at European level with which they are linked, under the same legal basis as applies to the latter's funding, in other words under Article 191 of the EC Treaty.
I know that the political parties represented in this House are forming or have already formed foundations at European level. The Council looks favourably on the possibility of providing Community financial support for the activities of these foundations under very clear rules which will allow, among other aspects, a clear distinction to be made between the areas of intervention of the parties which must be complementary and not overlapping.
The second main aim of the Commission's proposal is to revise the financial provisions which govern the funding of political parties at European level in light of the experience acquired in the meantime. To this end, the Commission proposes, among other measures, two derogations from the no-profit rule laid down in Article 109 of the Financial Regulation. The first measure involves the possibility of carrying over up to 25% of annual total income from one year to the first quarter of the following year to enable the parties to better respond to changing political circumstances and priorities. The second measure aims to allow political parties at European level to build financial reserves by saving income generated by the parties themselves in excess of a new reduced minimum co-funding level of 15%.
I must also highlight that it is proposed to establish clearly that appropriations received from the EU budget may also be used for the financing of campaigns conducted by the political parties at European level in the context of European Parliament elections, provided that this does not constitute a direct or indirect financing of national political parties or their candidates.
In the Council, the proposal was initially assessed three times by the General Affairs Group, in September and October of this year, and was generally favourably received by the delegations. However, some delegations expressed concerns about the proposed legal basis and the derogations from budgetary discipline.
An opinion was requested on these issues from the Legal Service of the Council. The latter considered that the derogations from the no-profit rule laid down in Article 109(2) of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 could only be enshrined in a separate regulation based on Article 279 of the EC Treaty and intended to introduce these derogations into the Financial Regulation itself by amending it. This opinion led to the proposal being split into two legal acts and the consultation of the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors.
On 17 October 2007, therefore recently, Coreper II debated for the first time a compromise text presented by the Portuguese Presidency and the opinion of the Legal Service of the Council. A week later, on 24 October 2007, Coreper II reached agreement on two points: firstly, the splitting of the proposal into two legal acts, one regulation based on Article 279 of the EC Treaty containing the provisions amending the Financial Regulation and one regulation containing the other provisions of the proposal based on Article 191 of the EC Treaty, and secondly, consultation of the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors on the amendment of Article 109 of Regulation No 1605/2002 in accordance with Article 279 of the EC Treaty. This consultation occurred immediately.
The two compromise texts resulting from the split were assessed by the General Affairs Group on 9 November 2007, therefore very recently. As a result, I am very pleased to announce that the General Affairs Group, which met last Friday, has confirmed the existence of broad agreement among the national delegations on the issues covered by the two regulations resulting from the split.
In essence, I would repeat that there is no significant disagreement between the three institutions. The Commission, Parliament and the Council all agree on the essentials with regard to European political foundations and the amendment of the provisions governing the functioning of European political parties. The legal basis issue was, and is, strictly a legal issue and it was not, and is not, the Council's intention to prevent agreement between the three institutions.
I can confirm, on behalf of the Council, that we want the two regulations resulting from the split to be adopted by the end of this year so that they can enter into force on 1 January 2008. To this end, I propose that Parliament postpones the vote on your opinion planned for this week so that, by means of the appropriate contacts, we can reach agreement at first reading on the regulation based on Article 191 of the EC Treaty, under the codecision procedure.
In that event, a Parliament opinion on the amendment of the Financial Regulation should be adopted as soon as possible. We have also asked the Court of Auditors to act promptly. We have little time but, in our opinion, there is enough time to adopt the two regulations under the conditions required by Parliament, the Commission and the Council.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, from the period of reflection we learnt that there is a clear demand and opportunity for measures to reinforce and expand the political dialogue. I have always said that if we want to create a European public sphere, then we also need to create more of a European political culture, and this particular issue is absolutely crucial to doing so.
Certainly, there is no single magic solution to bridge the gap between European politics and our citizens and there is no simple way to meet the democratic aspirations of citizens and their desire to be more actively involved. These aspirations must be promoted by a very wide range of initiatives with common purposes to ensure the broadest possible participation of citizens, including, not least, young people, and, I would add women, in the democratic life of the Union.
The activities of European political parties, together with the creation of European political foundations, is part and parcel of building this real European public sphere, where different opinions can challenge each other and the citizens can better understand the challenges at stake and make informed choices. Political debate and political controversy are part of democracy and we hope that this will also help to increase the turnout for the European Parliament elections.
I am happy to say that the Commission and Parliament have always agreed on this issue. The Commission was able to respond quickly to Parliament's request and our proposal was also strongly supported by Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs.
On 25 October, I stated before this House my concerns that Coreper had decide to follow a route which departed from that of the Commission and Parliament, and these concerns were shared by Members, including President Pöttering and Mr Leinen. But I also expressed my hope that the key objective of the Council, Parliament and the Commission would continue to be the same: the approval of the substance of our proposal before the end of this year.
Three weeks later, and having heard what the Presidency stated, I can only welcome the recent developments and express my satisfaction that we are on a common route again. The Council has been listening and the working group last Friday unanimously confirmed the full substance of our proposal. This means that we can now move on. But, even though the agreement reached in Council is an important step forward and very positive news, this is not yet the end of the process. We need to finalise the details in order to allow for a speedy adoption and entry into force of this regulation.
Even if the splitting of our proposal does not ultimately affect its substance, it entails a separate, more complicated legislative procedure and an opinion from the Court of Auditors, which, I hope, will be delivered in time. The schedule is very challenging and tight.
I would like to thank Mr Leinen for his committed work on this file, and all the other Members involved. I also want to thank President Pöttering, the Conference of Presidents and the political groups, who played an important role in preparing the ground for an agreement on this issue. So, Madam President, President of the Council, Mr Leinen,
(PT) We can move forward together.
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, President-in-Office, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the new Lisbon Treaty is the guiding vision for parliamentary democracy at EU level. For parliamentary democracy, you need political parties. You need political parties to represent the interests of society and offer citizens a variety of candidates and manifestos to choose from at elections. In all our 27 Member States, we have parties which stand in the national elections; what we need to do now is to enable these European parties to perform their democratic work at the European level as well.
We want to ensure that in advance of the European elections too, there is a range of active political families for our citizens to choose from, which are capable of mobilising the electorate and telling voters where they are planning to take them. We want citizens to be able to decide on the nature of the Europe that they are voting for and give them a real choice. The first Regulation on the statute and financing of European political parties, which we adopted back in 2004, was a resounding success. We now have ten political families which have registered, and this demonstrates the breadth of the political spectrum in the European Union. This revision of the Regulation is now designed to inject some flexibility into these democratic structures and expand them at the same time.
In most of our countries, we have not only political parties but also political foundations. These are vehicles for deeper analyses of social trends and are also a forum for debate which extends beyond the party membership. These foundations have proved their worth in many countries. They do good work and so it is all the more necessary to create the opportunity to conduct this debate, this discourse, about Europe at European level too, across national borders. I therefore welcome the fact that this instrument, which is additional to the political parties themselves, has also received Council's blessing.
Ladies and gentlemen, no political party's agenda is built around the financial year. It responds to political events, and so political parties must be treated differently from other associations. That is the purpose of this new Regulation: to inject some flexibility into financial management. We have three objectives here: firstly, we want the possibility of extending the financial year by three months on the expenditure side to enable parties to respond to political events. Secondly, we do not want parties to have to spend all their cash at the end of the year. We would like them to be able to use their own resources, membership contributions and donations to accumulate reserves which can be spent in response to key events in politics and especially, of course, on the European elections.
Finally, in order to assist the smaller political families in particular but also to get the European political foundations up and running, we need different arrangements regarding the proportion of grants and own resources. We envisage setting own resources at 15% and subsidies at 85% in the new Regulation.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Council has decided to divide the legal basis. We argued that this was not necessary. Unfortunately, this will result in a loss of transparency, because citizens will now need to look in two places for the legal basis for this new Regulation. However, we do not wish to prolong the disagreement over legal issues. That would simply drag out the process and distract attention from the real objective of this Regulation. In the interests of the European political parties and their preparations for the 2009 European election campaign, we ought to concentrate on issues of substance and conclude this matter before the end of the year. I am very pleased to hear that the substance of this Regulation has met with widespread agreement. I think we should now do everything possible in order to wrap up this important piece of legislation under the Portuguese Presidency so that we have a legal basis for political foundations and a basis for more flexible financial management in the 2008 budget year. Transitional arrangements for this will be required from the Council, as we originally proposed in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.
Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I would like to thank you for taking the initiative on behalf of the Commission. I am grateful, too, to the Portuguese Presidency for its genuine commitment to this issue, and to Mr Leitão, with whom I did a great deal of work. I would also like to thank the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control, Mrs Guy-Quint and Mrs Mathieu, for their valuable input in their reports, which introduces more transparency and more control over the allocation of these resources. We are well on track, and I hope we will get a result by the end of the year.
Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in presenting my opinion on budgetary control I highlighted the four requirements that seem essential to me: improving the control mechanisms and thereby increasing the powers of the internal and external auditors and of the authorising officer; setting up a complementary checking procedure; making a clear separation between the financial resources of the political parties and those of the foundations; and finally, clarifying the rules on the funding of campaigns for European elections.
I am glad that the Council is accepting the famous 25% rule that Ingeborg Gräßle proposed last year, which the Council had rejected. We fully understand that the agreement given this year contained a significantly derogatory element that related to this report.
However, a certain hesitancy as to the legal basis of the report leads us to doubt the outcome of the vote at the conclusion of this sitting, which is regrettable.
Parliament was very quick in drawing up this report and in delivering the opinions. It would be a pity if the Council's decision to split the report into two parts means that we lose time. We would therefore like to see it adopted quickly before the end of the year. Thank you.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, first of all, may I express my sincere congratulations and thanks to Mr Jo Leinen, the rapporteur, for doing a very good job. This report is one which my Group can fully support and we also endorse the amendments. The report turns political parties at European level, and the new instrument of political foundations, into effective tools to increase participation by Europe's citizens and boost Europe's democratic legitimacy.
The referenda in France and the Netherlands showed that it is important to rebuild the trust of citizens, including via the political parties and the foundations. It is also true that the financial rules need to be adapted to the rapidly changing needs of the political parties. Transparency, of course, must be safeguarded as well. That is why the European Parliament will be providing information on the funding disbursed to parties and foundations every financial year, and this will be available on our website.
Another good innovation is that the role of political parties in the context of the European elections is finally recognised. Only if Europe's parties can be actively involved in elections to the European Parliament will they become genuine players of the European polis and contribute to the formation of a European consciousness, thereby helping to overcome the democratic deficit which exists.
Another important component is the promotion of political foundations. Their work in the field of political information and education complements what the political parties do. These foundations have a special role to play in deepening the educational process and enhancing knowledge about the European Union, thus reducing the distance between citizens and the European Union.
I am convinced that foundations can boost the active participation of citizens in European political life, and they can also play an important role in the training of tomorrow's politicians. The legalistic thinking of the Council is rather hard to fathom, but as Helmut Kohl always said, the most important thing is the outcome. That is why I am in favour of this report, and I would like to thank everyone concerned for their commitment and cooperation.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, my Group supports this proposal, and thinks this is a practical set of adjustments to the current legislation and that it is actually useful that European political parties should have the ability to do research and so on through their foundations and have the flexibility to carry money over from one year to the next and so on.
There was the issue of the legal base: Parliament and the Commission agreed, and the Council disagreed with us on that. But it is the substance that is more important than the legal base, and I dare even say that it is better to have legal certainty than to face a challenge later on this matter in the courts. So we are happy with that and we are happy to seek first-reading agreements with the Council by postponing the vote.
Let me just add though that, for the reasons the rapporteur himself said, the European political parties are important because they express the political choices we face as a European Union. The media too often focuses only on the Council, and especially the European Council, as if it is some sort of gladiatorial combat between countries. Did Britain win today or did the French? Did the Germans make a deal with the Italians? Yet when those very same subjects come to this Parliament, you rarely see all the Members from one country voting one way and all the Members of another country voting another way, because we are making political choices - policy choices. Do we want higher environmental standards but at greater cost, or not? There will be people in every country on both sides of the argument, and the same with most of the choices we face. Political groups and political parties highlight the fact that it is political, policy choices we are making in our Union, not a combat between one national viewpoint and another national viewpoint.
That is why they need to be strengthened in their work; that will help citizens have a grasp for the sort of issues that we are dealing with; that will make our Union work better.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I should like to thank the Council Presidency for the progress that it is making in approaching an agreement at first reading. I trust that the Court of Auditors will be able to stir itself with unexpected alacrity to bring its opinion before us.
Fertile political thought is a necessary ingredient of a pluralistic, lively parliamentary democracy and this will be encouraged and stimulated by the measure before us to establish party-political foundations. It will encourage party politics to grow at European level and nascent European political parties to grow in self-confidence and to get stuck into campaigns in a purposeful way.
I have to say that we have been pirouetting around the problem of political parties for several years because, of course, they are prospective rivals and competitors for the old national political parties, which, I sometimes think, will be the final citadel defended in the interests of national sovereignty. So we should proceed fast to develop platforms at European level to support and promote post-national politics which truly reflect the paradigms of the 21st century.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, I welcome the work currently under way on sensible regulation of the funding of political parties at European level. It is very necessary and I commend Mr Leinen on his report.
We are also confronted with a broader problem, however. This concerns the consequences of the funding of political parties on the quality of democracy both at Union level and at the level of individual Member States.
For legal reasons, the party I represent was denied budget funding for some time during an election period. I know how very difficult it is to face a political opposition that has money when you have none. One of the largest political parties in Poland almost ceased to exist recently, threatened by the withdrawal of subsidies due to minor financial errors.
Money is important, but it should not be the only factor determining the nature of the political scene, as is sometimes the case. Clearly, this is a matter for a separate debate that should be held in this House. After all, democracy cannot be dependent on funding alone.
on behalf of the ITS Group. - (DE) Madam President, the citizens' interest in the EU is still modest, to say the least, and this is due, among other things, to its intransparent structures, incomprehensible decisions, and a lack of media interest.
Europe's existing political parties have made little impact in terms of reducing this deficit, and it is not at all clear that they are actually a suitable vehicle by which to fulfil the citizens' desire for more codetermination. That, in my view, can only be achieved through more direct democracy. Repackaging the cosmetically enhanced EU Constitution as incomprehensibly as possible after a deal done behind closed doors and avoiding referenda is also certainly detrimental to the envisaged and much-vaunted objective of generating enthusiasm for the EU among the citizens.
In light of these circumstances, European parties and their associated foundations are highly unlike to boost EU-phoria among citizens, but if they manage to improve debate at European level and communication with citizens, and represent their interests, too, we will at least have achieved something. However, their financing must be clear and transparent and, in my view, this must include auditing by independent bodies.
Madam President, let us be clear about Mr Leinen's report: it is not about democracy, it is about propaganda, it is about using the taxes collected from our reluctant citizens to drive forward a European project about which they are increasingly uneasy. The Danes voted against Maastricht, the Irish voted against Nice, the Swedes against the euro, the French and Dutch against the Constitution, yet their taxes will be used to promote integration.
Today in this Chamber, President Sarkozy spoke of European democracy, but across our diverse Member States the common public opinion necessary for representative democracy does not exist. Democracy at European level is a fraud and a delusion. By reserving funding for pan-European parties, Mr Leinen explicitly excludes Euro-sceptic parties which do not seek pan-European status, so taxpayers' money will be channelled to integrationist parties and denied to others. In a Europe that talks about democracy, this is a crime against the people.
(ES) Madam President, today the President of France spoke to the House about the need for dialogue and debate. I think that is what we all learnt during the period of reflection, as Vice-President Wallström said.
For dialogue and debate, however, we need instruments, and some of the most important and indeed essential instruments - although not the only instruments - are political parties. European political parties, like national political parties, shape the will of a people. That must also be their role in the representative institutions in Europe.
Talking about political parties at European level without talking about funding would be pointless. We must look at how those political parties, so necessary for shaping the people's will, are funded. I think that the most important issue in relation to political parties at European level - and also at national level, but it is the European level that is of interest to us here - is that financing ought to be responsible, clear and transparent. That is what is important to the taxpayers: that their money is well spent and that there are institutions that take responsibility for the way in which their money is used.
I believe that the people of Europe, although they may have some doubts or hesitations over the direction Europe ought to take, have no doubt that their future lies in Europe. Here in Parliament, I always hear even those who are most opposed to European ideas claiming that they are European and are not against Europe.
To go back to what I was saying at the start, and quote Mr Sarkozy once again: debate is necessary, and for there to be debate we must create the instruments needed to organise it.
I therefore welcome the report by Mr Leinen, which takes on board the Commission proposal, and I also thank you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, my good friend Mr Lobo Antunes, for your proposal to us.
The European People's Party will not discuss the basis here. If the regulation needs to be divided in two to find a solution that is acceptable to all, then so be it. You can count on our support.
- (EL) Madam President, I am glad that another fellow Member will be listening to the discussion, particularly on this issue, in our beautiful language.
It seems to me that we could use political parties here, which are valuable tools. Alas, we are keeping these valuable tools hidden away in our institutional cupboard where they are in danger of getting rusty. Most if not all of us are agreed on the democratic role that political parties should play in Europe, but I think we should also agree that they have not been playing this role as yet. This is because today's parties, as several speakers have said, are not really political parties. They are loose confederations of parties, as Dimitris Tsatsos, my teacher and rapporteur at the time, said in his report as long ago as 1996. We have no real political parties, and this discussion is a good opportunity for us to see if we can establish real political parties at EU level.
I have two comments on specific topics in the report under discussion. The report makes two significant advances. As we have said, it does not solve all the political problems, but there are two major advances. One is that now we recognise how the political institutions operate, an element of thought comes into our discussion. A vital element of ideological ferment has been introduced. One of the very problems of democracy in the EU is precisely that we do not engage in rigorous and serious political thought, and these institutes can supply this need.
The second major advance is transparency. This is especially evident in the transparency rules laid down for the parties themselves, but above all, I would say, with the new Article 9(b) on the transparency rules for Parliament itself.
Let me conclude with a brief comment on the issue of the fragmentation of the legal basis. I understand that there are technical problems here. Personally, I regret this fragmentation. The point is, if we all agree that from an economic point of view independence and transparency are integral parts of the political mechanism itself, would a single legal mechanism not be far more powerful?
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am favourably disposed towards this resolution in that it assists the democratic life of Europe.
The Group of the European Left, which is about to hold its second congress, have always said that globalisation, and also this Europe of ours, has seen a coming-together of markets, business interests and red-tape, while democracy has lagged behind. That is all well and good for strong powers, but not for those of us who believe in a different type of society catering for the needs of its weakest members.
This was the role of mass parties in the past. Today there is a fresh challenge, namely to establish parties capable of coping with new levels of conflict and decision-making; parties which rebuild democratic participation and a democratic role for Parliament, outside the system of broad coalitions and intergovernmental cooperation that stifles democratic debate. There is of course a need for transparency in the use of funds, but politics cannot be the sole prerogative of the rich.
(ES) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish first of all to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Leinen. Mr Leinen is one of the fathers of this Regulation and a tireless defender of political parties, with whom I have shared the odd battle to secure agreements, one might say.
Ladies and gentlemen, this proposal could not and cannot be the prisoner of battles between the legal services of the Community institutions. We must reach an agreement sooner rather than later because, if we fail to do so, the only victims in this conflict will be the political parties, who play a vital role in bringing the EU nearer to the citizens and encouraging them to get involved in politics so that they feel part of a common political project and a political future.
The parties also represent the transnational dimension of the EU's process of political integration. This report shows Parliament's flexibility and operational capacity. This House cannot be accused of failing to cooperate to reach an agreement at first reading before the end of 2007.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to set out three ideas, three basic improvements to this project, which we welcome and which will ensure the development of the parties and the foundations.
The first is the vital role of European political parties in elections to the European Parliament, reflected in the possibility of using the financial allocation for European election campaigns.
The second is the independent management of European political parties, with the transfer of annual reserves, and the possibility of creating reserves from own resources over several years.
Thirdly and finally, encouraging political foundations on a European scale enhances the activity of the European political parties. The foundations are a vital instrument for extending the action of the political parties and strengthening links to citizens, and they will play a major role in terms of information, debate and political training.
(FI) Madam President, our Group is divided on this. I represent those who do not believe that the Europarties make for greater democracy. They are parties of parties and with them power gets further away from the people. They deliver centralised policies decided by the big parties in the big countries.
They can use Europarty funds to spread centralised propaganda in the European elections at national level. They receive Europarty funds to promote European awareness among the people. The aim of centralised power is to make people adopt a more sympathetic attitude towards it - to make them submissive.
A new agent of propaganda is now being proposed in the shape of a legal basis for special European foundations, reducing the extent to which the Europarties are self-funded and allowing them to escape compliance with the Financial Regulations to which others are obliged to conform. Some in our Group say no to all this.
(DA) Madam President, I am not an anti-federalist. I believe that federalism is a good form of government in Germany, Canada, Switzerland and the USA. However, it requires a people, and there is still not a European people that is prepared for a European democracy. Since I was first elected, participation in elections has fallen from 63% to 46% most recently. Next time this figure will probably fall below 40%. The European media are very few in number and small. They live off artificial subsidies. There are no common parties with members who have signed themselves up, who voluntarily pay their membership fees and who are involved in the creation of election programmes. The parties are controlled by the national parties and financed by the taxpayers. They now want more money and the opportunity to use it in national elections. This distorts equal competition, is unfair and is probably unlawful because it is in breach of the principle of equality.
Party support is being managed by members of the largest parties; my party has lost its subsidies because an individual signature is required from one of our members, even though not all the members of other parties have signed for their membership individually. We are being treated differently, yet there is no critical press that raises cases involving discrimination. I would gladly vote for subsidies for European political parties if the electorate wanted a European democracy. Begin by giving the elected people's representatives power over the legislative process, and take the power away from the government officials and lobbyists, so that the electorate can make a difference by turning out on election day and voting for a different party. Create living parties with direct membership and voluntary membership fees, so that we can then arrange the public aid which the electorate deems reasonable and which is not discriminatory. Currently, we hardly have the support of the electorate for any further pressure on the citizens' purse.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Wallström ended her initial speech in this debate by expressing the wish that we move forward together. The conclusion that I have drawn from this debate is that we are effectively moving forward together. This can only be good news for the Council and the Portuguese Presidency and I must thank the Commission and the European Parliament for the fact that we can move forward together based on the proposal which I have presented to you today.
As has already been said, the form is not so important; what is truly important is the substance. The substance in this case is to provide the European political parties with additional resources so that they can fully carry out their political activities and exercise their competences and so that they can fully involve all our citizens in this fascinating process of European construction.
That is the real substance, the real reason and the real issue. As I have said, I can only rejoice that the three institutions have been able to reach agreement on how to move forward in this regard. I must also say, if you will allow me to be frank, that the fact that we could reach this agreement during the Portuguese Presidency is for me and for the Portuguese Government naturally a key aspect of our Presidency, which is rapidly coming to an end.
I must say three things to you. Firstly, we hope that we will soon receive the opinion of the Court of Auditors and that we will therefore be able to achieve a rapid conclusion in this respect. Secondly, it was said here today by a Member that there were some European political parties that would be excluded from the scope of the new regulations: that is not the case as all are eligible. Finally, I want to very sincerely reiterate our commitment to do everything we can to conclude this process by the end of the year.
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, the Council has just stated that there is broad agreement on the content of this Regulation. On Thursday, prior to the vote on this item, I will propose that the vote be postponed, so that we can get an agreement at first reading before the end of this year, probably at the December part-session.
I have noted the information you have given us, Mr Leinen, and we shall finish our debate with a contribution from Commissioner Wallström.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, Mr Lobo Antunes, I definitely think that you should take all the credit that you deserve for hopefully being able to conclude this particular file before the end of the year. Then I think we should have a glass of wine, or port, to celebrate what the Portuguese Presidency has achieved on this very important file.
If Mr Helmer had remained in plenary, I would have turned to him and said that he is a living proof of how European democracy works because European taxpayers pay his salary to be here to oppose, to be against the European Union and all the rest of us. We welcome him here, we accept him here because his voice is also necessary in this debate.
So those who oppose also play a very important role in this Chamber in the European political debate. This is exactly the idea behind giving all the political parties the possibility of forming and contributing to the European political foundation, to have a lively debate where both sides and all the different views can be expressed. And we do it in an open and transparent way about the criteria, about the rules, about exactly what legal base to apply for all of this. There are no secrets in this particular proposal.
As the situation is right now, all the 10 currently existing political parties at European level have set up political foundations which represent a very wide range of political views and programmes.
This can only stimulate this lively and diverse debate on European policy issues, and it will contribute to bringing Europe closer to its citizens.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.
Written declarations (Rule 142)
in writing. - (HU) I feel that the Commission's recommendation is important and shows the way forward. The European political parties play an important role in politics at European level. They have a big role not only in European political life but also in the creation of a European public sector in the broadest sense, so I feel that their role and the redefinition of their activities are topical.
It is a central question whether we should support the initiatives of these European political parties in the interests of encouraging citizens to participate consciously in the democratic life of the Union, and in its creation. I trust that there is demand and an opportunity for measures to reinforce and extend political dialogue: ensuring the most widespread participation possible of citizens in the democratic life of the Union, not least including young people, in order to ensure that everyone is heard.
I would like to mention here that one of the political goals decided for the European Union is still the promotion and advancement of the creation of a European public life. In order to do this, one of the elements emphasised in the Commission's document is support for political foundations at European level that provide assistance or support and supplement the activities of groups of political parties that are close to them, through various initiatives such as, for example, organising European seminars, training and conferences.
Finally, European-level foundations like this can ensure an efficient financial framework for cooperation between national political foundations and teachers at European level, including other representatives of youth organisations and civil society.


Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity
Now for some administrative announcements. Mr de Magistris has submitted two requests for the exercise of immunity and privileges in two court cases in which he is involved in Cosenza and Milan respectively. Mr Uspaskich has submitted a request for the exercise of immunity and privileges in a court case in which he is currently involved in Vilnius. Mr Tudor has submitted a request for the exercise of immunity and privileges. Pursuant to Rule 6(3), these requests will be sent to the committee responsible, the Committee on Legal Affairs.
(IT) Mr President, this is not a point of order; I simply could not understand what you just said.
If I am right, Mr de Magistris has requested the defence of his immunity. There must be some misunderstanding. Since Mr de Magistris is the champion of the battle against immunity in my country, it was probably misinterpreted. I think it unlikely that Mr de Magistris would have requested the defence of his immunity. I must have misunderstood and I should therefore like some clarification on this matter.
As I said, it was a request to defend his immunity. It will be decided by our committee as usual, pursuant to Rule 6(3).


Budget calendar: see Minutes


31. A renewed EU tourism policy: towards a stronger partnership for European tourism (vote)
- Report: Paolo Costa


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes


Welcome
I am pleased to be able to inform you that a delegation from the National Assembly of Vietnam is with us today on the occasion of the 7th EP/Vietnam Interparliamentary Meeting. A very warm welcome to you all!
(Applause)
This Meeting takes place at a very important juncture in our relations. Vietnam is currently negotiating a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU and also plays an important role within ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, with which the EU is negotiating a free trade area. As you know, Mr Nassauer is the Chairman of our delegation.
I should like to extend a very warm welcome to the Vietnamese delegation, led by Mr Nguyen Van Son, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Vietnamese National Assembly, and wish you productive discussions. We did of course see each other yesterday.
Once again, I wish you a very warm welcome!


11. Regional policy (islands and natural and economic constraints) (vote)


12. Renewed Social Agenda (
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, very briefly, I hope the House will forgive me for this last-minute oral amendment to paragraph 14. Colleagues may be aware that this is a sensitive issue and in some languages and for some Member States this does give difficulties. It is important that we try to get the maximum support for this report at the end.
The suggestion is that, instead of paragraph 14 as written, we replace the whole paragraph with a paragraph that has already been accepted by the House. This was paragraph 23 of the Parliament resolution of 11 March 2009 concerning the Spring 2009 European Council on the Lisbon Strategy, and which covers exactly the same ground. I will read it; it is just a few sentences:
'Notes that some Member States have introduced the concept of a minimum wage; suggests that other Member States might benefit from studying their experience; calls on the Member States to safeguard the preconditions for social and economic participation for all and, in particular, to provide for regulations on such matters as minimum wages or other legal and generally binding arrangements or through collective agreements in accordance with national traditions that enable full--time workers to make a decent living from their earnings;'.
As I said, this has been approved by political groups in the past. My apologies for tabling it now. The rapporteur is OK by this, and I hope the House will at least allow the oral amendment to be tabled.
(SV) Thank you very much. I would just like to say something briefly about the Swedish translation. In paragraphs 13 and 36, 'minimum income' has been translated by the Swedish word 'minimilön', which means 'minimum wage'. It should be 'minimiinkomst'. There is a difference between 'minimiinkomst' and 'minimilön', and so there is an error in paragraphs 13 and 36 of the Swedish translation.


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes


9. Agriculture and international trade (


Opening of the sitting
(The session begins at 9.00)


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes


6. Obligations of cross-border service providers (vote)
- Bericht: Lethinen


17. Evaluation of the Dublin system (


9. Improving economic governance and stability framework in the EU, in particular, in the euro zone (
Mr President, this is an important oral amendment: 'whereas, as far as possible, all 27 Member States should follow to the maximum all the economic governance proposals, recognising that, for non-euro area Member States, this will in part be a voluntary process'.
It has been accepted by the PPE Group, it has been accepted by the S&D Group and even the Commissioner has accepted it. I hope that you all can accept this oral amendment. It is important for me, it is important for the ALDE Group, and it is especially important for my country, Sweden, if we are ever going to join the euro.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
That concludes the vote.
Because the voting has gone on so long, as a result of your excellent work, I would like to ask those who have requested to give explanations of vote to change these explanations from oral to written or postpone your turn until tomorrow, because 62 requests have been put forward and we are unable to deal with them all.
Mr President, I would like to congratulate you on the excellent job you did today. I really appreciate the way you exercised your chairmanship today, and I hope you will share your wonderful skills with other vice-chairs of Parliament.
Mr President, I have voted today and my constituents can see how I voted today, so therefore, they should have the opportunity to have my explanation of vote today.
I made a request that you should change your oral explanation into a written explanation. This will still allow you to give your constituents the reasons that prompted you and others to vote in a certain way on the various issues. We do not wish in any way to deprive you of any rights. I only ask you to join the other MEPs who are giving up their right to make an oral explanation in order to give a written explanation. That is all.
(IT) Mr President, I will comply with your request: Mr Mastella and I will put our explanations in writing. Secondly, I join my fellow Member in again congratulating you, Mr President.
(IT) Mr President, if you agree, and to keep everyone happy, we can defer the oral explanations to tomorrow.
Yes, I most certainly agree. If Mrs Sinclair is also in agreement. I count on the goodwill of the MEPs, calling on them to make oral explanations tomorrow or written explanations today and we will allow Mrs Sinclair the opportunity to make hers now.


3. Nigeria (vote)