23. Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities (
- Before the vote (oral amendments to Amendments 62, 65 and 75)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur I wish to table three oral amendments: to Amendment 62 - on the voting list, if you can follow - regarding recital 12, I propose that the entire parenthetic clause from 'annual amounts' up to 'annual budget' be deleted.
To Amendment 65 on the voting list, concerning recital 12c, I propose that the following parenthetic clause be inserted between the words 'parliamentary assistance' and 'cover the total costs': 'the annual amounts necessary will be determined within the annual budgetary procedure'.
To Amendment 75, which concerns Article 131, my oral amendment is to add the word 'transparent' to the words 'reference framework', to give 'transparent reference framework'.
These are the oral amendments that I am tabling to the House as rapporteur. I hope that they are accepted.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would formally ask the Commission whether it is in agreement in respect of all these accepted amendments.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is pleased that an agreement has been reached between the institutions on a joint text for a statute for parliamentary assistants.
On behalf of the Commission, I can confirm today our agreement on this text, which preserves the full substance of our initial proposal. The Commission prepared this proposal in response to a request from the European Parliament to the Commission in a letter from President Pöttering to President Barroso. Only eight months after this request, you have now endorsed the result of the very constructive discussions between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. With this proposal, for the third time in 10 years, the Commission took the initiative of addressing the issue of a statute, and we firmly believe that this time we will succeed. We now have to use this window of opportunity. Therefore, I also give a commitment on behalf of the Commission to defend this text until its final approval by the Council.
(Applause)
Mrs Wallström, I am sure that Parliament welcomes your statement.
We will now proceed to a roll-call vote to close an issue that has been pending for almost 30 years.
Let me just savour this moment.
- After the vote
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while I am grateful to the Commissioner, I would ask for your attention for a moment because I have to read out a political declaration, an institutional political declaration agreed on with the Council.
'The European Parliament and the Council, notwithstanding the competences of the budgetary authority, agree that the transition to new conditions of employment of accredited parliamentary assistants does not in itself require an increase in the appropriations entered in the European Parliament section of the general budget of the European Union and intended to cover parliamentary assistance, with respect to the appropriations entered for this purpose in the budget for the financial year 2008, subject to indexation.
The European Parliament draws attention to Article 69(2) of the implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, as adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 17 July 2008, which stipulates that the total expenses reimbursed to all parliamentary assistants may be indexed each year by the Bureau.
The European Parliament and the Council agree that, where the Commission has to propose, pursuant to Article 96(11) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities (CEOS), an adjustment of the contribution to the unemployment insurance scheme, as a result of the inclusion of accredited assistants in that scheme, the necessary payments from the European Parliament should be financed by way of an appropriate budget heading and drawn from the global appropriations intended for the sections of the budget relating to the European Parliament.
The European Parliament and the Council would point out that, in accordance with Article 248(4)(2) of the EC Treaty, the Court of Auditors may at any time present its findings on specific problems in the form of special reports or give opinions at the request of one of the other Community institutions.
The European Parliament undertakes to consult the future body representing accredited parliamentary assistants with regard to any amendments made to the internal decision referred to in Article 125(1) of the CEOS.'
This is the declaration agreed on with the Council, and while I would ask the Council whether it agrees - I think it is fairly safe to say that it does - I should just like to devote a couple of minutes to sharing a thought, an idea, with Parliament. We have concluded a piece of work which, as the President pointed out, is age-old and has been debated for many years. However, the Committee on Legal Affairs, which was given the task of having to consider, in just a few days, a proposal that came from the Commission but that had somehow been drafted by the Roure committee - I refer to the chairman, Mrs Roure, whom I thank - has done a thorough job. It is with great pride that I must say that the Committee on Legal Affairs has thoroughly investigated a problem that my fellow Members know is difficult.
We have struck a balance regarding the free and fundamental choice of Members to choose their own assistants - this is stated throughout the framework - a balance that gives rise to transparency, that provides rules and that therefore changes this situation about which there was uncertainty. I have stood up for the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr President; I have also written a letter to Mr Pöttering, to say that, as the Committee had the duty and right to hold a large-scale debate, it has done so, and I believe that it has found the right balance. In the trialogue I must thank the Commission and the Council, who have worked together, but, above all, I must thank the coordinators, my colleagues and Maria José from the Secretariat, who has made an exceptional contribution, which we are consolidating today.
I hope that my fellow Members will vote in favour; we will see in the next two years whether this legislation can contribute significantly to our parliamentary work.
Many thanks, Mr Gargani.
I would also, as this has been the result of teamwork, take the liberty of congratulating Martine Roure for her excellent work within the working group, chairing it with great determination
I would also, of course, like to extend our thanks to our Secretary-General, who has been a formidable negotiator on this topic - and without his determination, none of this would have been possible - and also to the four most recent Presidents of the European Parliament, Mr Pöttering, who was keen to complete this matter, Mr Borrell, who enabled us to take a decisive step forward with the adoption of the codex, Mr Cox, who made it possible to separate the various statutes, and, of course, Mrs Fontaine, who fired the starting pistol almost 10 years ago, so that we could finally have this report before us today.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry, this may seem like sycophancy, but my fellow Members will forgive me, since some may still not be aware that the person who put forward this matter within the Bureau in years gone by was in fact you, and therefore as you were not able to say it, I will. Therefore, on behalf of my group and of those outside my group, I thank you also for your work within the vice-presidency of Parliament.
Thank you everybody. I think that the new statute will serve as an example in other parliaments all over the world.


Written declarations included in the register (Rule 123): see Minutes


12. Extension to Liechtenstein of the EC-Switzerland Agreement  on trade in agricultural products (


Closure of the sitting


Order of business
The final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday, 10 January 2008, pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. The following amendments have been proposed:
Monday:
No amendments.
Tuesday:
The PPE-DE Group has proposed that the two Demetriou and Cashman reports on the control of persons at the EU's external borders be postponed to a subsequent sitting.
- (EL) Mr President, this report seems to have the Council's full approval in substance, but there is a procedural issue, since Coreper has not yet met - I think it is to meet tomorrow or the day after. Furthermore, the Slovenian Presidency has asked, for procedural and official reasons, for the meeting to be postponed until the next plenary part-session in Belgium. There is no objection to this postponement.
(Parliament adopted the motion.)
Wednesday:
The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe moved that the debate on the statements of the Council and Commission on the situation in Pakistan following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto be concluded with the submission of motions for a resolution.
Mr President, we have over the holiday break seen a number of very worrying developments in Pakistan, not least, of course, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
We have the opportunity to discuss this matter this week. It is the view of my group that we should close our debate with a resolution, in particular since we should take a position sending a message to the Pakistani authorities in advance of the visit of Mr Musharaff to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House.
Does anyone else wish to speak in support of the motion?
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that it is very poor practice indeed for important debates to be concluded without a resolution. This Parliament is here to take clear positions and not just to be a talking shop for group chairmen and other group spokespersons without the adoption of resolutions.
Mr Musharraf will be coming here and he should know what this Parliament thinks about the situation in his country, so that we can argue the matter out with him. I believe we should be bold enough to put an end to the old habit of postponing the adoption of decisions for fear of acting on our own courage, by voting for a resolution.
(Parliament rejected the motion.)
In view of the shortage of speaking time for the Wednesday afternoon sitting, the Socialist Group has moved that the debates be extended to 6 p.m. With the agreement of the Council, Question Time can be extended until 7.30 p.m.
(DE) Mr President, you have said everything there is to say as far as the explanatory statement is concerned. It is a good thing that Council Question Time has not been shortened as a result. I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
(Parliament adopted the motion.)
(The agenda was therefore adopted.)


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 1.55 p.m. and resumed at 3.05 p.m.)


Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (debate)
The next item is the report by Martine Roure, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council concerning the progress of the negotiations on the framework decision on action to combat racism and xenophobia.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, the European Union is based on humanist values, of tolerance, multiculturalism and protection of fundamental rights. We share strong values that should be protected. The fight against racism and xenophobia is one of our priorities, but we must bear in mind Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is devoted to freedom of thought, conscience and religion while respecting the inalienable right to freedom of expression, in accordance with Article 11 of this same Charter.
The Commission presented a proposal for a Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia in November 2001, in order to bring closer together the legislative provisions of Member States in relation to racist and xenophobic offences and to fight more effectively against racism and xenophobia in Europe. Until now, and despite an initial opinion issued by the European Parliament in July 2002, this Framework Decision has been at a standstill. In spite of the efforts of several Presidencies, Member States have still not been able to reach an agreement on the definition of punishable behaviour and the level of corresponding penalties to be imposed. It is, therefore, absolutely essential to have a European instrument that makes it possible to combat racism and xenophobia.
Recent statistics show that racism and intolerance are on the increase. The growth in extreme right-wing parties in Europe and, unfortunately, within our own Parliament, obliges us to strongly condemn any speech that incites hatred. This Framework Decision obliges us, however, to find a fair balance between freedom of expression and sanctions for offensive behaviour. The freedom to mock and criticise certain excesses, be they political or religious, are necessary in all democracies.
The European Council has finally come to an agreement on this subject and we are pleased about this. Indeed, the European Union must spread a strong political message to fight against public expressions of racism or hatred. We cannot allow ourselves to fail again on a text that is symbolic for the European Union. I should like to thank the German Presidency for this strong message, which confirms that Europe is not just a great market, but is working for the defence of the fundamental rights of all European citizens. This new compromise is the fruit of long and difficult negotiations and we are aware that, of necessity, it has its weaknesses.
Nonetheless, I want this political compromise to constitute a minimum level of harmonisation that will allow Member States to go further in future, and I am particularly pleased by the addition of a review clause which will make it possible to achieve a higher level of harmonisation in future years. Having said that, in order to compensate for these weaknesses, I call on the Commission to present in parallel a proposal for a directive on the fight against all the forms of discrimination listed in Article 13 of the Treaty, in order to strengthen European legislation in this area. I know, in fact, that Mr Špidla is working towards this, I think. I hope that we shall soon have a proposal for a directive.
Finally, this political agreement on the framework decision has brought about substantial changes in the text in comparison with the Commission's first proposal on which Parliament gave its opinion. Consequently, Parliament should be consulted again in the next few weeks. We will issue our opinion quickly, you can be sure of that, because we have all worked hard for several months. We are all set.
This instrument is absolutely necessary for us to live in a world at peace, in which everyone is respected with their differences, beliefs and ways of life. This instrument is essential if we are to put an end to hatred and racism in a united and fraternal Europe.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Roure for her speech and for her report. The political agreement reached at the Council last April, after five years of negotiations, was certainly highly significant.
This agreement, albeit on a less ambitious version of the framework decision than the Commission's original proposal, in fact ensures that from the moment the framework decision enters into force and is transposed in each Member State, there will no longer be any safe haven in Europe for those who incite racial hatred, racism and xenophobia. This represents a political success.
I appreciate that the text of the framework decision contains penal provisions that could have been much harsher. I would have preferred stricter legislation. However, as the rapporteur has just said, we had to accept a compromise because, it being a framework decision, the principle of unanimity meant that we could not set our sights as high as we would have liked to.
Nevertheless, for the first time we have a common rule, stipulating that behaviour inciting hatred or discrimination based on race, skin colour or religion must be punished with criminal sanctions in all Member States. Consider how important it is to punish behaviour inciting anti-Semitic or Islamophobic hatred at a time in which we are talking about integrating immigrants from outside the European Union into our communities.
One of the main issues has certainly been to find the balance between criminal punishment for such behaviour, which is not free expression of thought but concrete incitement to commit violent acts and must be punished as such, and due respect for freedom of expression. We have worked hard on this aspect and I believe that the final result is satisfactory.
The measure is not intended to punish ideas, but behaviour inciting other people to commit criminal acts, to attack, to wound, to kill and to commit real acts of violence. All this has absolutely nothing do with freedom of thought. We are not punishing ideas, but those who, on the basis of a mistaken, if legitimate, idea, move from this idea to behaviour inciting others to attack and to commit criminal acts. This is the boundary between freedom of expression of thought, which must be safeguarded, and concrete incitement to violence.
This is why I believe this decision to be significant. It is for this reason that we have established the principle - which is highlighted in Mrs Roure's report - by which a racist motive shall be considered an aggravating circumstance in all offences. If an ordinary offence involving physical violence is committed for racist motives, it must be more severely punished, since not only incitement as such, but also racist motives, make a given offence more serious than the act itself.
This is an important principle, and I believe that the fact that all 27 Member States have accepted it unanimously puts the European Union in a better position to uphold this key value listed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish first of all to apologise for Mrs Esteves, shadow rapporteur for my group, who unfortunately will not be able to take part in this debate.
I thank Mrs Roure for her work, her application and her perseverance because, yes, perseverance was needed to keep on demanding that the Council reach an extremely necessary agreement. More than five years of negotiation to reach a proposal for a framework decision on racism and xenophobia: is it really reasonable to have stalled for so long measures that are so fundamental to the lives of our fellow citizens?
I should like also to warmly thank the German Presidency for succeeding in breaking the deadlock on this text. The European Union is founded on communities with values, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity. By uniting, we have all decided to share those values.
Ladies and gentlemen, declarations of good intentions are not much use, if they are not followed up with strong actions. That is why it was necessary to act, to act practically, so that intolerance, in all its forms, should no longer poison our continent. Harmonisation of the legislation of Member States in relation to offences of a racist nature was vital. Henceforth, every Member State will have to make it an imprisonable offence to publicly justify, deny or crudely trivialise crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and I am satisfied about that.
Nonetheless, I will not hide from you that my satisfaction is not absolute: yes, the adoption of this text sends a strong signal, especially in this European Year of Equal Opportunities, but I am afraid that its added value may be minimal. In fact derogations are anticipated and flexibility accepted. Therefore, behaviour will be penalised only if it could incite to violence or hatred towards a group of people. How, then, is it tolerable for a revisionist to be able to express his views in some European countries in the name of freedom of expression? Freedom of expression stops when the rights of others are flouted. I completely understand that there are different cultural and legal traditions in our Member States, but the fight against racism must not be the subject of any compromise. Tolerating certain expressions of hatred is, in actual fact, accepting them.
Ladies and gentlemen, as elected representatives, we shall have to be clear and condemn forcibly these acts of violence. We must remain vigilant because our fight in defence of human rights and for respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights is far from over. I ask you, tomorrow, to vote very broadly in favour of this text. This battle is ours. It is an honour to our European democracies and an honour to our Parliament.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I am not only indebted to Mrs Roure for her report, it also receives my unqualified support. Racism is a persistent and growing problem in European societies. This is why more and better instruments are needed to address it, including at European level, should this prove necessary. As racism knows no boundaries, neither should measures to address it therefore.
Last year, my resolution on racism in football met with overwhelming support in this House, and I hope that this will also be the case for Mrs Roure's report tomorrow.
In the resolution on football, we called for a tougher approach, but a European stand on racism should not confine itself to football alone. Europe must promote the safeguarding of equal treatment for all its citizens. This is why proper education is needed, as is Europe's active commitment in favour of social inclusion in a bid to isolate those advocating racism and xenophobia and to strive towards a tolerant and diverse society.
I am pleased that hate crimes are being highlighted in particular in Mrs Roure's report. I also endorse the appeal not to introduce a hierarchy among the different grounds for discrimination. All forms of discrimination, including Islamophobia therefore, should be addressed in the same tough way.
The report mentions 9 million victims of racism and xenophobia. This is probably an accurate figure, but as I see it, 494 million citizens are the victims of racism, because if racism goes unpunished, then this has a damaging effect on society as a whole. Europe is there for everyone, and we should, above all, keep it this way.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all I would like to pay my compliments to Martine Roure, who has once again done a great job. I would also like to commend the German Presidency for having secured this deal, but again I note with deep regret that the Council is absent during this important debate.
However, I am very happy that this legal instrument has finally been adopted. It is long awaited and very welcome, but now much depends on whether and how it will be used in practice, because a legal instrument making hate crimes a criminal offence is only the last resort. A legal instrument will not eliminate racism. Only our own attitude and our own mentality can do that, and we need much more than just this framework decision.
We need to promote equality, respect and tolerance, and that should be more than just words. Each of us has a responsibility in Europe. Legislation is not enough and we should lead by example. I very much concur with Mr Gaubert, who made reference to statements by people in public. That does not just apply to the average citizen but, even more so, to prominent politicians and religious leaders - in short, opinion leaders. It is therefore regrettable that even prominent people in Europe have recently made statements that incite hatred and violence. They contribute to a climate of intolerance and hatred. I refer, for example, to the President of one of the Member States, who made very denigrating remarks about Roma people. It is unacceptable and I think that Parliament at least should speak out against such unacceptable statements.
I am also referring to a Member of this House, Mr Giertych, who issued an anti-Semitic leaflet. Fortunately we reacted very strongly to that. I am also thinking of Mr Wilders in my own country, who made the most outrageous remarks in a debate yesterday, to which nobody reacted. That is another problem: we allow these extremists to set the political agenda. Even the mainstream parties have adapted their language to the language spoken by extremists. So we should look very carefully at our own statements and our own behaviour.
Finally, I very much agree with the call for the legislation to be extended to cover other groups, because we all know that hatred and violence against homosexuals is rampant in Europe, even in my own country, unfortunately, as it is against women. Sometimes we tend to forget that, but there are many statements that somehow seem to make violence against women acceptable. The next step should be to create a legal instrument that condemns incitement to hatred and violence against all groups of society.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her commitment on this ongoing dossier, which should have been on the statute books before now. As others have said, we also think that action is important.
Last year, we saw a rise in anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hate crimes in many parts of the European Union, or at least those parts which record such crimes effectively. As others have said, it is the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All and many of our citizens, residents and visitors still face discrimination and hate crimes simply because of the colour of their skin, their beliefs or because they have committed the perceived crime of being foreign. The Director of Human Rights First stated that 'victimising one member of a particular group threatens all members of that group and causes immeasurable harm to society at large'.
My group sees this framework decision as a complement to existing legislation, but we also want to see existing legislation fully implemented. We support the call to be reconsulted on this dossier, and we have some concerns, for example that provisions for mutual assistance between Member States have been removed, which may make it more difficult to combat cross-border racism. We know that there is significant international organisation, for example, among groups based on despicable concepts of racial supremacy.
We have co-signed the constructive amendments to this report. Other amendments represent to us part of the problem, but we look to the Council for constructive and forceful action in conjunction with Parliament.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Roure for her persistent work with the Council in putting together this framework decision. It has taken a long time, but we can say that we have at last reached an important milestone.
It is quite right that we should combat racism and xenophobia with legal instruments, but I think that above all we must implement widespread cultural action. I believe that this Parliament also has the means to initiate an effective information campaign in Member States, to ensure that this framework decision can be organised into a great cultural battle of ideas.
I believe that it is necessary to fight against racism and xenophobia, because the data provided by the European Monitoring Centre are alarming. There are increasing reports of racist and xenophobic behaviour, and it is my belief that we must tackle those who frequently attempt to incite racial and religious hatred. This can be achieved primarily through the media, which are all too often used to communicate messages that are highly dangerous for society.
I believe that the initiative adopted by the Council, but above all the work carried out by Mrs Roure in this Parliament, will serve as an effective tool for the political efforts and for continuing this work. As Mr Frattini has said, we need to establish the limits within which there is a balance between freedom of expression and the fight against racism and xenophobia. I believe that this is vital and that we need to implement strong political measures and important cultural action.
(LT) Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, in the Berlin Declaration adopted on 25 March this year it is stated: 'European integration has shown that we have learned from our history full of bloody conflicts and suffering'. I believe this is so, and one proof thereof is the document we are considering today.
The basic resolution defines the following as crimes: fomenting hatred and violence, public endorsement of genocidal crimes, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and refusal to acknowledge these crimes or immense trivialisation of these crimes. The basic resolution limits itself to crimes perpetrated on the basis of race, skin colour, religion, ancestry, or national or ethnic origin. However, it does not deal with similar crimes committed for other reasons, such as hate and violence against certain people because of their political beliefs, or their affiliation with a certain social group, or the social situation of groups of individuals - for example, the crimes perpetrated by totalitarian régimes.
I think the time is coming for a supplementary document which could deal with fomenting hatred and violence, public endorsement of genocidal crimes, crimes against humanity and war crimes directed against groups of individuals defined by criteria other than race, skin colour, religion, ancestry, or national or ethnic origin, which I have already mentioned. Such a document might address, for example, social situation or political beliefs, refusal to acknowledge these crimes, or trivialisation of these crimes. Criminal responsibility could be laid down in these instances.
The European Commission's initiative in fostering public discussion at the European level of genocidal crimes, crimes against humanity, and war crimes perpetrated by totalitarian régimes and those who endorse them, grossly distort them or diminish them, is welcome and worthy of support. On the basis of these discussions, after two or three years it should be possible to submit another proposal concerning a fundamental resolution on these crimes.
(LT) Mr President, I congratulate the author of the report, Martine Roure, on her courage, and extra loud praise goes to Germany, which has proclaimed adoption of a resolution on the fight against racism and xenophobia to be a priority of its presidency.
The idea of the European Union is based on tolerance, trust and peaceful coexistence of nations. Unfortunately, in recent times the number of racist and xenophobic attacks is not diminishing; instead it is getting close to 10 million per annum. Racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic elements are being used not just by extremist parties - even the apparently more stable mass-membership parties and their leaders do not shy away from them. Even in this Chamber and in some national parliaments it is not uncommon to hear speeches steeped in extreme nationalism and xenophobia.
I agree with the rapporteur that in a culture based on rights and freedoms, criminal law is the last resort to be used desirably as little as possible. However, it is inevitable that penal policy will have to be used to tighten up this area. I fully support Commissioner Frattini's opinion that a racist motive in a crime should mean an increased penalty for that crime.
No less a priority is education, likewise dialogue between different religions and cultures, and a measured and thoughtful look at the past. Even when people are feeling their most tolerant, if discussions start about whose tragedy is the greatest and whose pain hurts the most, this is the road to the trampling of tolerance and lack of trust in one another.
For the new countries of the European Union the issue of restoring historical justice is particularly sensitive. The time is coming for an attempt to reconcile the attitudes of old EU members and the new countries to the tragedies and painful events of the 20th century. This needs to be done without some parties feeling a monopoly on morality, able to force their opinion on other nations. The most important aim is not to exacerbate, but to heal wounds, to learn from history and to block the path for any rebirth of racism and xenophobia.
Mr President, whether it is the increase of Islamophobia or the sharp rise in anti-Semitic attacks, intolerance in Europe is on the rise. It is long overdue and more important than ever for the EU to remain firm by adopting legislation to counteract these worrying phenomena. This text does not, in itself, constitute the concrete action needed to address the persistent problems of racism and xenophobia in Europe today. It could be stronger by using the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination as a benchmark.
Secondly, this legislation must reaffirm Europe's commitment to our core values of respect for diversity and intolerance of discrimination, a commitment that must amount to so much more than the sum of the political compromises of the Council's text. In the current political climate, where support for right-wing extremism across Europe has brought racism into the mainstream, moderates must use this legislation and the dialogue that will surround its implementation to take back ownership of the diversity debate. We must rebuild the bonds of trust between divided communities and we must ensure that feelings of alienation are replaced with a much-needed sense of security.
(PT) Mr President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, first, I am delighted to say that I share Mr Gaubert's kind words for Mrs Roure. She is an MEP to whose outstanding work we have become accustomed, and she has once again proved this and, as Mr Catania correctly pointed out, her tenacity.
Crimes of a racist nature continue to be a constant, persistent problem in all Member States. The first step must always be that of prevention. It is necessary to try to prevent racism and xenophobia by means of a policy of education as early as possible and by means of political and social discourse aimed at preventing the dissemination of hate and the promotion of xenophobia and racism.
The figures from the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia confront us with this reality in the EU. Whilst it is important to recognise, in legal terms, that the Member States have legal provisions at their disposal, it is also necessary to point out that there are major differences between these provisions, and that harmonisation needs to take place. This framework decision is therefore welcome insofar as it comprises a certain level of harmonisation of the Member States' criminal law and improved mutual assistance in combating racism and xenophobia.
With this initiative, Parliament has presented its recommendations and adopted its positions on an issue on which - let us not forget - it has been much more consistent than the Council.
(LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Nazism and communism are two banks of one river. Nazism has been studied in detail by academics and politicians; it is well known and condemned by the international community. Germany itself has contributed to this process, understanding and acknowledging its historical mistakes.
We know little about the other bank of the worst crimes of the past century - communism. It is hardly discussed; therefore, its crimes against humanity have not yet been acknowledged on a global scale. About 20 million people died during the Nazi period and the Holocaust; but 100 million people of various nationalities became the victims of communism.
I support the Council's basic resolution and the declaration adopted with the basic resolution, in which the Council condemns the crimes committed by totalitarian régimes.
I invite Member States to continue the work of exposing the crimes committed by communist régimes, assessing them appropriately and supplementing the basic resolution. I invite the European Parliament to initiate discussions about the crimes of communism and to make its own input by acknowledging communism to be a crime against humanity.
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Roure, for her excellent report on this important but, it seems, highly controversial subject. It is important since it is estimated that millions of people fall victim to racist crime each year. It is controversial since it involves striking a balance between effective action to combat racism and xenophobia on one hand and respect for freedom of expression on the other.
In fact, the subject apparently seems to be so controversial that the text currently under discussion has been the product of several years of negotiations. This of course begs the question, was it strictly necessary that so much time was and still is spent before arriving at a suitable solution? Let us think of the millions of people who have suffered as a result of this serious time lag. Is the reason for this extreme delay purely technical politics, or even negligent indifference? Or is there some underlying attempt not to proceed speedily as some influential political forces are not so favourable to such action and are themselves bordering on being racist and xenophobic?
Perhaps the Commissioner can reassure that the latter is not the case at all and that my fears are utterly unfounded.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)
in writing. - I have become increasingly concerned by the rise of racism and xenophobia across the EU, both in new Member States and established Member States. In a Union which has the free movement of people as a central pillar, this is doubtless an issue which requires Community action. Indeed, initiatives like the European Year of Equal Opportunities, which we are currently in, are key to spreading best practise in eradicating discrimination. It is important that these efforts are redoubled in order to counter the rise in Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism and discrimination against other minority groups, especially those from new Member States. We, as a House, and all of the European Union institutions and Member States must do our utmost to rid Europe of the scourge of racism and xenophobia, and make clear that it will not be tolerated.


19. EIB and EBRD annual reports for 2007 (


13. Prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (
on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - Madam President, on behalf of the committee, I would like to request the adjournment of the final vote, under Rule 57(2).
As you know, this was the view of the committee expressed on Tuesday, and we think that we can now proceed to have further discussions with the Council with a view to achieving a satisfactory outcome.
I therefore ask for the adjournment in order that we can conclude this or leave the door open to concluding it, with a first-reading agreement in July.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (DE) Madam President, we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament already voted against this amendment at the committee stage. We believed that this report was ready to be put to a vote now, and the overwhelming approval for this report would seem to prove us right. We are familiar with the arguments put forward as to why we should re-enter negotiations with the Council, which is why I would like to state my position on the motions for a postponement that will follow the other parts of this package. We can see this as an indication that the German and French governments need to move once again on two significant points. However, we know from the Council that this is not going to happen. That is why one question is of decisive importance for us: what do the groups who support this motion plan to do if the Council fails to make any changes that reflect our decisions? Will they vote in favour or against the packages? This is an important issue for us.
Madam President, I would like to underline what Mrs Bowles has said: we are hoping to find a final agreement on the report before our plenary session in July.
Right from the beginning, we have taken the position as a Parliament - including the Socialist Group - that we treat this as a package. So let us treat this as a package and now support Mrs Bowles' proposal to postpone the vote to July.


European Critical Infrastructure (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council directive on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure and the assessment of the need to improve their protection - C6-0053/2007 -
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur for this important report, which follows the presentation of an initiative by the Commission.
The protection of critical infrastructure is, of course, a priority for the European Commission as well as for the Member States, not least because the need to protect critical infrastructure from the eventuality of a terrorist attack, for instance, derives from the very nature of such infrastructures and the interconnection and interdependence between them. Indeed, if a physical or technological infrastructure is attacked in one Member State, the effect will inevitably be felt in other Member States. That is why we need a common European prevention and protection framework.
Our view was that the best way forward was to involve the private sector first of all, which means drawing on currently available technologies and stimulating more technological research. We would then call on companies and research laboratories to collaborate by placing the outcome of such research at the disposal of the common European framework. The idea is to have proper security schemes devoted to the various infrastructure sectors and a real network of liaison officers to ensure that this common European framework functions.
Our idea is to take into consideration only those infrastructures that are truly cross-border in nature and not of course those confined to the territory of just one Member State, unless that particular critical infrastructure has an influence that goes beyond the borders of that Member State.
As you know, we adopted a communication last December to set up a European programme for critical infrastructure protection, together with a proposal for a directive to identify which infrastructure needs protecting. I am therefore grateful to Parliament for having examined all the proposals on such an important subject. The communication, of course, identifies principles and processes to be carried out as well as the instruments for carrying out the processes, while the directive lays down rules for identifying those infrastructures which, according to a common European approach, require protection. It is our intention to develop this action plan through a broad web of public-private collaboration.
We think that the Member States should be assisted in developing the various initiatives included in the action plan; we are also convinced that the international dimension must be taken into account and that financial measures must be put in place. Of course, we already have a financial programme for the prevention, preparation and management of the consequences of the terrorist threat, which may be able to provide appropriate funds for critical infrastructure protection measures.
I can say straight away that I can accept certain important amendments that Parliament is preparing to examine. The first concerns the need to emphasise in the text of the directive that it is the responsibility of each Member State to identify the most appropriate forms and methods of implementing it: in other words, we must stress the principle of flexibility in the implementation of the directive, on the basis of which the measures, whether mandatory or not, should be put into practice without an excessively rigid approach.
The second point that I think is acceptable concerns the need to clarify the procedures for exempting certain sectors from some of the obligations laid down in the directive. The Commission has foreseen the possibility of exempting certain sectors, and Parliament's draft amendments substantially seek to specify more clearly when a particular exemption applies to a given sector. I believe I can agree on the need to introduce some specification, thus making things clearer.
I also agree with the proposal to amend the list of critical infrastructure protection sectors given in Annex I to the proposal for a directive. I think Parliament's proposal to amend that annex is acceptable, as is the introduction of certain changes to the sectors where resorting to the comitology procedure is envisaged. There is a specific proposal on that, although we should be aware that by limiting the use of comitology we would be increasing the time it would take to implement the directive. Basically, comitology is perhaps a rather complicated instrument, but it does save time in implementation, However, I am not against accepting the idea behind those amendments.
To conclude, Mr President, I can say that I am happy and pleased with the report before us, and I hope Parliament will adopt it by a large majority. We need to show that we are speaking with one voice on a strategic measure such as this European initiative to protect critical energy, transport and technological infrastructures, which require strong prevention and protection measures, because the terrorist threat is unfortunately directed first and foremost at critical infrastructures. I am therefore grateful to Parliament for the contribution that it has already made and is yet to make to this work of ours.
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, back in June 2004, the Council tabled a request in which the Commission was asked to prepare a general strategy to protect critical infrastructure. In the past three years, the topic has not been off the Commission agenda, quite rightly so. In line with the wishes of the Council and the European Parliament, the Commission finally moved a proposal for a European programme to protect critical infrastructure, which culminated in the Directive we are debating today.
As rapporteur, I support the idea of a common framework in this matter. The effective protection of vulnerable critical infrastructures and services requires communication, coordination and cooperation in which all interested parties are involved, both at national and at European level. The complex processes and interfaces of critical infrastructure with a transnational dimension are, as I see it, also legitimate areas for consideration.
As Commissioner Frattini has already explained on several occasions, damage to, or loss of, a certain infrastructural provision in a Member State can impact badly on various other Member States and even on the European economy as a whole. Thanks to new technologies, for example the Internet, as well as the far-reaching liberalisation of the market, for example where the supply of electricity and gas is concerned, many infrastructural provisions are already part of bigger networks.
Indeed, in these circumstances, the effectiveness of all these protective measures is determined by the weakest link. I do take the view, though, as Mr Frattini already observed, that the Commission has been slightly too proactive or overenthusiastic in some sections of the Directive. It must be clear that the primary and ultimate responsibility lies with the Member States and the owners of this critical infrastructure.
From that point of view, I consider a bottom-up approach to be of critical importance. Common action can, in my view, only be justified if at least three Member States were to experience adverse effects, or at least two Member States other than those in which the critical infrastructure is located. After all, much has already been agreed upon bilaterally, which, to be honest, is also the most flexible solution.
In addition, I take the view that overlaps or inconsistencies with existing legislation and/or provisions should be avoided at all costs. Existing criteria and mechanisms must therefore be taken into consideration. It is equally important to me that the private sector is not faced with an unnecessary administrative burden. I would urge them to make use of the expertise that is already available and would, above all, counsel against re-inventing the wheel. I would therefore argue in favour of this pragmatic, yet structural, approach.
Following the debates in the parliamentary committees, certain groups of Parliament have also agreed to focus on so-called priority sectors. It has, indeed, also been decided to scrap the proposed comitology procedure. In the past, the use of the comitology procedure has too often led to shaky situations. I am therefore very grateful to the Commissioner for his observations on this matter and on the other amendments and for the fact that he has shown his satisfaction. I would like to have a reaction, however, to the definition of two to three Member States, because this is the most important amendment in my view.
I should like to finish off with an observation for the Council, which is once again conspicuous by its absence. The agreement on a common position appears to be a bridge too far for them. This is quite remarkable, given the fact that the Council asked for this common framework itself, and out of character too, because, if anything happens, then the Council is all too keen to be the first to immediately announce all manner of rules without really taking the quality of the proposals into account, their ramifications for the internal market, for example, or the European citizens for that matter.
After all, vision and power are two skills that can be expected from the Council in this matter. At the opening of the plenary sitting earlier today, President Poettering spoke wise words. Nobody is waiting for ad hoc rules and regulations that are dictated by panic. A structural line of attack, on the other hand, taking the principles of rule of law into consideration - and the latter is vitally important - is very welcome. I thank you and I thank the Commissioner.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - (DE) Mr President, cross-border crises, whether caused by terrorism or natural disasters, call for Union-wide protection of critical infrastructures. Critical infrastructures cannot be kept secret by not mentioning them. It would be completely naïve to think that.
From a psychological point of view, the destruction of critical infrastructures leads to a loss of public confidence in the European Union. Crisis protection is not therefore only a national matter but requires European crisis management, as the Commission proposes.
Moreover, as the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has clearly pointed out, moving elements of European infrastructures outside the EU increases the risk of terrorist attacks and access to data in particular makes the entire infrastructure more vulnerable. This is also true of banking and insurance. Even if security and controls are constantly being improved in these areas, there is still a need for additional coordinated European action. Nobody will want double regulation. What we need is greater security. The Directorate General for the Market must be guided by that and not by short-sighted wishes expressed by industry.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. - (DE) Mr President, the Committee on Transport and Tourism is of the opinion, for its area of responsibility, that with this proposal for a directive the Commission is exceeding its powers, because it is misunderstanding its instructions. It speaks of stabilising the internal market, but the directive is supposed to be principally about protection against acts of terrorism.
Moreover, the Commission proposal contravenes the principle of subsidiarity, because it seeks not only to complement Member States' existing measures, but to replace some of them. Finally, the proposal does not address the real task, but delegates it to a comitology committee.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism therefore rejected the Commission proposal, although we know that we do of course need European cooperation. The question is simply how. My main concern is to ensure that the Member States are not obliged to notify their critical European infrastructures to the Commission so that it can then make a complete list of sensitive EU infrastructures, attach security plans to it and then store everything in some office in Brussels. That would be against national security interests. Such a list would be an interesting source of information for terrorists.
All that should be done by the Commission is to define and list in general terms the most important sectors at risk. It should be left to the Member States to identify those sectors, because it is they who are primarily responsible for the protection of critical infrastructures and they carry the ultimate responsibility for measures to protect critical infrastructures within their national borders. In the interests of national security, that must continue to be the case. Only a devolved management of sensitive infrastructures can reduce the level of risk.
I believe the narrower definition of critical European infrastructures, according to which at least three Member States, or two others than the one in which the critical infrastructure is located, must be affected, is the right one. We must ensure that the directive covers only European infrastructures and no national ones. I also consider that bilateral cooperation between Member States is more sensible in this area on security grounds.
Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, most sincerely and assure her of my support.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, indisputably, we have raised a very difficult issue with critical European infrastructures. There can be no doubt, however, that we need to get to grips with this question at European level and find and develop solutions jointly with the Member States, because the potential threats which the Commissioner has just described do exist and must therefore be taken seriously.
It is, however, extremely difficult to say where the European competence lies in this matter, what must be organised at European level and where particular devolved tasks must be dealt with. This question occupied us in committee for a very long time. We have tried - and I would like to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for her very fair and open cooperation - to find a way that will ensure the exchange of best practice between the Member States with EU-wide coordination, while at the same time keeping the subsidiarity principle central. Neither, as Mrs Sommer has already said, do we want to notify specific critical infrastructures and collect them somewhere, rather we want to ensure that secrecy is guaranteed.
That is why we agreed that the Member States should notify the Commission of their respective critical sectors but not specific infrastructures. It was important for us not to go for a comitology procedure, and I am grateful to the Commissioner for accommodating Parliament on this. As the rapporteur has already pointed out, the procedure's inefficiency in the past does not encourage us to go further down that route. We suggest another way.
I also want to say that it was important for us that unnecessary bureaucracy should be avoided, that a contact point in the Member States should do the designating and identifying and that no new bureaucracies should be created, that administrative costs should be reined in and that there should be plenty of flexibility.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, the President of the European Parliament, Mr Poettering, referred today to this very report by Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert when he condemned the latest terrorist attacks, both on European territory - where airports were the targets - and in third countries, such as Yemen - in the case of the murdered Spanish tourists. In the latter case, the target was not a specific infrastructure, but rather tourists travelling in a vehicle along a road.
This reference once again demonstrates or reinforces the importance of this exercise proposed to us by the Commission and for which I would like to thank the Commissioner most warmly. This is not a single measure but rather part of a long process - which began in 2004 - which is now taking the form of increasingly interesting and effective measures.
Furthermore, in view of the complexity of our European society, based on these complex and open networks of communication, supply and services on which, additionally, the economy is founded, we must defend them and defend ourselves in view of their potential vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
I wish to point out that my group was more in agreement with the Commission's original proposal relating to the definition of critical European infrastructures, in the sense of infrastructures shared by two or more countries, or cases in which a State is affected by an infrastructure of another Member State.
For example, for us, the Eurotunnel could be a good example for the application of this optimum protection from possible attacks, not to mention airports, etc., where we have already suffered such attacks.
Tomorrow, therefore, we shall maintain this position in favour of the Commission's original proposal, because we want to remain hopeful that we may find more support in the Council. In any event, we prefer to continue moving towards more integrated and European approaches, and we prefer to avoid savings that appear to reduce costs but that we could end up regretting in the future.
We do support everything that Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert proposes in terms of protection with regard to third countries; we support everything relating to the protection of the individual data involved; naturally, we support everything relating to the necessary confidentiality - we have long experience of dealing with this confidentiality, both at national level and at Commission level, and we do not believe that it is going to be violated in this case - and we also agree that we should avoid any duplication of what has already been done within the Member States and what the Commission is now proposing.
In this way, we hope to overcome the backward-looking position that we had to accept in the Committee on Transport and Tourism and with which my group still does not agree. We hope that, with the proposal that will be put to the vote tomorrow, we will be able to continue moving forward and that with both what Parliament is proposing - and I am grateful for the great work by Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert and all of the honourable Members - and with what the Council is proposing, we will be able to achieve better protection of our critical European infrastructures.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (LT) I would like to thank the Commission member and the honourable rapporteur for their suggestions; however, I would like to stress that these suggestions should be interpreted as only the beginning of the discussion. I do not know whether the Internet can be described as critical infrastructure according to the definition used by the Commission. It is hard for me to know, if a website was blocked in one country, would that mean that it was no longer critical infrastructure? One need only block the website of a large bank that has its headquarters, let us say, in Germany, France or Great Britain, and all the residents of Europe will feel it. We are talking about the consolidation of the financial sector, the consolidation of economic activity, even the consolidation of hotel chains. In other words, we have to acknowledge that critical infrastructure has spilled into cyberspace, and I believe that Estonia is the first country to have experienced elements of cyber-war. I regret that little attention has been paid to this, and now this topic is getting beyond the scope of the concerns of the Commission Member responsible for communications. However, I would like to say that this topic has to be highlighted from a security point of view, because it is hard to imagine what the lives of European citizens would be like without the Internet. Whether the Internet is European or whether it belongs to one country we cannot say - it is a world-wide web, and of course, to define how to protect the web from an attack that could be carried out at any minute is rather complicated and the level of debate has to be quite different. We are presently talking mainly about physical infrastructure and, without a doubt, tragic scenes upset us, but life is becoming ever more virtual and this needs attention.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, no one in this House disputes that close cooperation between the Member States is very important and necessary for countering terrorist risks. Our criticism is of how this is to be done. More bureaucracy will not help us against terrorism! I would like to thank the rapporteur for at least bringing the proposal back down to earth and greatly improving the Commission's version. She has also made a number of very practical suggestions.
We are all agreed that improved cooperation and information are good things. That can be done bilaterally or multilaterally. But compiling a list of all at-risk infrastructures will bring no gains in terms of security and may even be counterproductive. In the end, however, competence lies with the Member States in any case, and there is no point at all in shifting it to the European level.
I hope that when we come to the vote tomorrow we will all proceed with the same realism as the rapporteur has shown and go on to secure what we now have: a sensible way forward that takes account of reality and fosters no illusions!
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, those who already wanted more government pressure in the areas of the army, police, security services, all kinds of other control system and the prison system in the past have been able to reinforce their position since the turn of the century. They can now refer to the advent of a new kind of terrorism, which, as it came as a shock to everyone, creates scope for ill-thought-out solutions.
At all administrative levels, proposals have been moved to subject democracy, the freedom of association, the freedom of demonstration, the right to strike, the freedom to travel and privacy to the proposed guarantees for security. The trouble with this line of attack is that it does nothing to remove the seedbed from which terrorism springs, including the utter inequality in wealth or power that divides the world.
Instead, we collect more intelligence, monitor more objects, organise more bureaucracy and bring about more displeasure. In the European Union, in the area of critical infrastructure, there are already 32 directives, regulations, treaties and decisions that make a European approach possible. This is why adding a new directive with yet more powers and obligations has raised a few eyebrows.
In January, the committee for the subsidiarity test of the Dutch Parliament drew my attention to this very subject. This committee is calling into question Article 308 of the EC Treaty, which focuses on the interim enhancement of powers, as a legal basis, and considers the protection of critical infrastructure to be first of all a national affair.
As shadow rapporteur on this subject in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I was delighted to find that this committee decided to invite the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to emphatically reject the proposal. The main reason for this request was that everything that is in the draft Directive can be regulated more effectively on a smaller scale, in other words by the Member States or their regions. In this case, more interference from the European Union means, above all, more unproductive bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, the groups that voted 'no' unanimously in the Committee on Transport were divided in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. My group was no different. Most smaller national delegations consider this to be a poor proposal, partly because unnecessary interference obscures the division of tasks between the Member States and the Union, and partly because it may be used inappropriately in order to cut down on civil rights, such as the freedom of demonstration, by referring to the protection of infrastructure, in which case it does not affect international terrorism, but rather domestic democracy.
By contrast, the members of our larger delegations from Germany and Italy also see positive points in the proposal. They expect a reduction in the powers that are already being exercised by the Commission anyway and better parliamentary control of the application of the remaining powers. Those in favour and against in my group applaud the fact that the amendments predominantly weaken the effect of the draft and confine the application to matters that affect at least three Member States.
(DE) Mr President, unlike the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy or the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the committee responsible, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, failed to recognise the importance of the European level for the protection of critical infrastructures. The focus is no longer on the protection of individual infrastructures but on the consideration of sectors.
I think the procedure proposed in the report lacks resolve. The added value that comes from including the European level has been almost completely abandoned. It is clear that responsibility for critical infrastructures must rest with the Member States. However, if we leave designation entirely to the nation states we will not identify the weaknesses and structural dependencies, and that is precisely what is needed for the designation of critical European infrastructures.
The idea that a list would be as good as a textbook for terrorist attacks is downright naïve. The Member States have had such lists for a long time. One of the most important structural errors was, for example, not having checked those lists with NATO. In the military sphere, NATO has had such lists of critical infrastructures for 40 years and relevant scenarios have long been provided for in anticipation of military crises.
(SV) I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur for a constructive report and an efficient piece of work. It feels as if we in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs are systematically wading through all those areas of society that have bearing on the terrorist threats to our citizens. The President too addressed this issue today.
It is very important that we not look at each individual measure in isolation but review all areas together so that we obtain common security regulations covering everything from visa regulations and security checks in aviation to better ways of protecting ourselves against the threats to airports, public transport and harbours and to the whole of the infrastructure which, because of the huge number of passengers involved, could be hit by a huge disaster if a terrorist attack were to occur.
The issue from the rapporteur's proposal that I wish to address is that of whether three or more Member States should have to be affected by disruption or destruction, or whether it is enough that two be so affected. The rapporteur's proposal involves an increase to three Member States from the two referred to in the original proposal's directive. I consider this increase to be unreasonable because a threat, disaster or instance of devastation may affect a lot of people, despite few countries being involved. Moreover, the incident may make more impact on the place affected than it would have done on more centrally located places in the EU. This proposal makes it still more difficult to take account of smaller EU Member States, in spite of the fact that they are in danger of being hit by equally serious crises on just as large a scale.
I also believe that as we plug the holes and make it more difficult to attack aviation, the terrorists will concentrate on other targets and on central locations within the infrastructure, to which a huge amount of damage can be caused. We should not be naïve. Instead, we must be as well prepared as we possibly can be. That is our responsibility.
(ET) The cyber attacks against Estonia that took place in April and May of this year were the first such events that gained global attention. Yet these were not the first attacks against the essential infrastructure of Europe. Until now, cyber attacks had been directed against individual companies, primarily in the financial sector, where the Internet has become an indispensable environment for transactions.
For understandable reasons banks prefer not to make a lot of noise about attacks. Lack of confidence in the reliability of banking systems would have serious consequences for the entire European economy.
Fields of activity in which the Internet has become an essential part of infrastructure include public administration and the media. The inability to repulse a cyber attack could in the worst case scenario throw the European Union back in time to the last century.
Imagine today, in the 21st century, a situation in which communication between ministries is interrupted, and both the government and the media are unable to inform the public. This is precisely what happened in Estonia, as Mrs Starkevičiūtso correctly stated.
I would like to thank the rapporteur and emphasise her excellent timing. Cybersecurity is the best example of the need for cooperation in the defence of the essential infrastructure of the European Union. During this hitherto unique cyber attack against an independent state, Estonian IT specialists were supported by experts from both the European Union and beyond.
May this cooperation be an example and a lesson in internal security to the responsible parties in all the Member States. Neither wealth nor military force can help repulse a cyber attack. The only defence is cooperation. Once again, many thanks to the rapporteur.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while I am grateful to all the speakers, including the rapporteur, I am afraid I have a few concerns about accepting the rather restrictive approach that the Committee on Transport and Tourism has tried to put across.
As certain Members have rightly pointed out - Mrs Segelström was the last, and there were others - restricting the minimum threshold for defining a European infrastructure to just three or more Member States would, in my view, have two drawbacks, the first of which would be to prevent the smaller European Member States from taking part in the critical infrastructure protection programme. We, of course, want to avoid any such eventuality. We want to offer all Member States that are potential targets for terrorist attacks a way of taking part in this European strategy.
I must also raise objections to the restrictive attitude that is hostile to the idea that Europe should concern itself with a common infrastructure protection framework. This is not a matter of subsidiarity, which we are extremely careful to respect. The problem is that infrastructures nowadays are closely interconnected, and the last speech by the Member from Estonia, who recalled the cyberattack on her country, provides the most obvious proof of that: it was an attack that affected an entire countrywide system. Even though only a single countrywide system was involved, can we have any doubt that that attack indirectly affected Estonia's entire network of relations with the other countries of Europe? If the banking system of just one country is paralysed for a certain number of days, then one of the basic structures of the European Union is inevitably affected. I therefore believe that the Commission's original proposal, for which I confirm my support, is better in that it provides a wider range of opportunities.
With regard to cyberattacks, I do not rule out the possibility that terrorists may plan an attack on a countrywide system, such as a banking system, a ministry or an administration system: we are examining what happened in Estonia and our information security agency will be producing a report after the summer. I obviously intend to publish its report but, leaving aside the analysis of this particular incident, we cannot rule out the possibility that terrorist organisations may be thinking of knocking out an entire countrywide system by means of a cyberattack. That is why I believe a rather less restrictive interpretation is absolutely essential.
To conclude, I once again thank the rapporteur and all the Members of this Parliament. I believe that adopting a rigorous report on the initiatives undertaken by the Commission would show very clearly that we are concerned about prevention. As someone rightly pointed out, the European Commission and the European Union's institutions have been acting to strengthen our policies on prevention ever since 2004. It is only by doing so that we can provide a truly effective and coordinated response to the threat of terrorism.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, 11 July 2007.