6. Human rights of the Dalits in India (vote)
(DE) Mr President, I would like to suggest that we avail ourselves of the option provided by Rule 168(2) of our Rules of Procedure and send this report back to the committee. The reason I have for saying this is that I am familiar with the problem of Article 90 and that this report surely describes the situation of the Dalits, India's so-called untouchables, in accurate terms, it is no less apparent that nobody among us finds these conditions tolerable, and we are obliged to do whatever we can about them. However, it also appears that India has raised serious objections to this report on the grounds that it discusses the caste system in India and hence something that is part and parcel of that country's traditions and culture.
I would, then, ask that consideration be given to whether it might be well-advised, in the interests of what we are trying to do, to discuss this again in the committee, even if what emerges from it later on differs from the present motion for a resolution in no respect whatever. We would, however, be well advised to talk to the Indian authorities again, since it is all too often we Europeans who wag the finger at others and tell them what to do, which tends to hinder us from achieving the objectives we seek, so I put it to the House that this would be a wiser course of action.
(DE) Mr President, unless my ears deceive me, you said that this act, under Rule 90, is adopted, in the absence of any objection to it.
Secondly, embassies keep on interfering in what we do; in this instance it is the Indian embassy doing it, but we speak for a people rather than for any embassy, and so we should stick with the resolution as it stands.
Mr President, I have an altogether different point to make. I was the Vice-President of the Human Rights Sub-Committee and the deputy coordinator in the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the time when this report went through the Development Committee. It is primarily a human rights report. The opinion of neither Foreign Affairs nor Human Rights was sought on this. We have had no opportunity to amend it. It is a human rights report going through Development. It is not within that committee's remit.
It is not just a question of the Government of India, it is a question of procedure. How can we have a report going through Plenary without a vote or an opportunity to amend it when the committees with the main responsibilities for the issue have never seen the report, have never had an opportunity to correct factual inaccuracies? It is not factually correct!
(Applause)
(DE) Mr President, as Mr Swoboda has said, it has already been adopted, so the debate is over, and all other deliberations are superfluous. If Mr Nassauer and Mr Tannock want to produce another report, they will have to start from the very beginning, and we will vote on it five years from now.
Mr President, as a negotiator on this report in the Development Committee, I recognise the point made by my colleague Mr Tannock, because if we have a Human Rights Sub-Committee, this report should have gone to that committee for comment. It only went through the Development Committee, but it should have gone to the Human Rights Sub-Committee because this is fundamentally a human rights report. Therefore I recommend that we send the report back to committee and ask the Sub-Committee on Human Rights of the Foreign Affairs Committee to give an opinion on it.
(Applause)
Mr President, speaking as chair of the SAARC Delegation, I recognise that this is a very delicate report. However, we also have to recognise that there are factual inaccuracies in here.
For procedural reasons, this report was approved in the Committee on Development on 19 December 2006 and the deadline was 15 January 2007. Most of the intervening period was taken up by the Christmas break. We have looked into the issues; we have had several meetings; we have opinions; and I would ask, as a delegation chair, that we have an opportunity to make our view heard. I would support referral back to committee. You cannot have a report without any debate or any vote. It is short-circuiting the democratic scrutiny process and I think it is important that we do credit to this House.
(Applause)
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am deeply saddened by the example we are setting regarding a resolution that we have debated thoroughly within the Committee on Development and on which we have had time to table amendments. This is an issue that does not interfere - certainly no more so than many other far more forceful resolutions adopted by this House - in China's internal affairs.
We know perfectly well that the caste issue is an extremely sensitive one, but we have listened to the Dalits, who do not just live in India, but in many other countries too: we are talking about millions of people who live in degrading and inhuman conditions.
I am sorry but I really think that our Parliament is setting a very bad example and, as with all the other resolutions that are being voted on, I believe that this resolution, being, as it is, a resolution voted on by the Committee on Development, should be voted on in Parliament, since it concerns a problem of human dignity and of the right of millions of people to live, and to have their lives and their dignity respected.
(Applause)
Ladies and gentlemen, we must do as the law says. I shall now read out to you Rule 90(4), and I ask you to listen carefully, for this is pretty difficult legalese, but this is the Rule to which the President has to keep, for the President must be guided by the law as it stands.
Rule 90 (4) states that: 'Recommendations drawn up in this way shall be included on the agenda for the next part-session. In urgent cases decided upon by the President, recommendations may be included on the agenda of a current part-session. Recommendations shall be deemed adopted unless, before the beginning of the part-session, at least forty Members submit a written objection, in which case the committee's recommendations shall be included on the agenda of the same part-session for debate and voting. A political group or at least 40 Members may table amendments.'
I have to say at this point - and I am keeping to the law, as I am required to do - that no written motion has been submitted by 40 Members prior to this sitting, and so my recommendation is that the relevant committee should continue to discuss this issue - which is a very delicate one - and, should they come up with another result at some other point in time, that is in order, but right now, I have to do as the House's rules require.
(Applause)


5. Establishment of a financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised countries (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006) (


34. Discharge 2005: European Agency for Reconstruction (vote)
- Report: Herczog


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 6 May 2010.


Amendment of regulation on a standard financial regulation for executive agencies - Framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (debate)
The next item is the vote on two reports by Mrs Gräßle:
1. on a standard financial regulation for the executive agencies to be entrusted with the management of Community programmes
and
2. on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission thanks Parliament, and, in particular, the rapporteur, for his constructive approach. The Commission is entirely committed to providing for full transparency vis-à-vis the budgetary authority as requested today by Parliament and in line with the joint statements of the European Parliament and the Council of July 2007.
In particular, as regards the decentralised agencies, the Commission will insert in the regulation accrued information requirements concerning the number of contract staff, operating surpluses, assigned revenue, transfers and waivers to recoveries.
More transparency of information on the work of the agencies, and not only in financial and budgetary matters, is also a concern recently expressed by the Commission in a communication to Parliament and the Council.
At this point, let me recall the Commission's proposal to set up an interinstitutional group to engage in a political discussion on the role and place of agencies in European governance, both with the Parliament and with the Council.
The Commission is indeed convinced that, if we have a consistent approach to agencies, we - all three institutions - can promote the transparency and effectiveness of an important part of the European Union's architecture. This is why I would like to conclude by expressing the wish that the interinstitutional working group proposed by the Commission starts its work soon.
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to speak here even at this late hour, and thank you all for your understanding.
I requested permission to speak here. I am speaking for the Commissioner's sole benefit, as I think it is important to tell the Commission that we consider the amendments we have tabled, on which we shall also be voting tomorrow with a very large majority, to be important. I wish to tell him that we are only at the consultation stage with this dossier, and I should like to assure him on behalf of the whole Parliament that our amendments will help to bring greater order into the agency system. It is therefore very important to us all across the group divide that the Commission take them on board. I am obliged to the Commissioner for his assurances in this regard, and I shall also be monitoring the situation.
It is very important to me that he also understand why we want this. We need better accountability in the agencies and greater transparency, particularly among staff members. This concerns our budgetary law most directly. The Commissioner will also be aware, of course, that if our wishes are not taken on board we shall find our own ways to fulfil them. We regard this essential to our budgetary law.
The Commission had originally intended the present reform of the Financial Regulation to consist of merely technical modifications. We talk of better regulation, yet I have noted with great sorrow that the latest joint decision on agencies by the Council and Parliament in July has not been incorporated. The Commission's draft came somewhat earlier, but it would have been nice, of course, if it had been subsequently reworked. I should have also thought this fairer than leaving the work to us.
The European Parliament has introduced political changes with great unanimity right across the group divide. We want to bring internal operations, responsibilities, transfers of appropriations and accountability of agencies more into line with the operations and practice of the Commission Directorate-General by means of a declaration of assurance. We also want a better overview of the personnel and financial costs of the agencies. We want to be informed of all employees and not just those on the establishment plan. This is an absolute necessity.
I should like to give an example from a recent report by a decentralised agency on financial management in 2007. Thirty-nine posts are listed on this establishment plan, whereas 43 temporary staff and 11 contract staff appear in the text two pages before this. No two figures match, therefore. It is left to the reader's imagination as to whether we now have 39 plus 11 posts or 43 plus 11 plus 39, or whether the 39 posts of 43 staff are listed and the 11 are then added. We just do not know. I shall clarify the issue, but clarifying this issue for the large number of agencies is no fun, of course, and reporting and the reporting system are more or less equally chaotic in all the agencies.
The agency I have just quoted, ENISA, is interchangeable with any other, and I should indeed like to ask why the information we are given is so full of inconsistencies. We also want more information on the agencies' revenue - which, thinking of Alicante, can indeed be sizeable - and we want to know what is happening to this revenue. I thank the Commissioner in advance for taking on board these amendments - as he has just announced his intention to do.
Currently, we have 29 decentralised agencies with 3 914 employees on the establishment plan for 2007, with a budget of EUR 1.1 billion, EUR 559 million of which comes from the EU. The five executive agencies have 176 posts. The latest Commission communication on agencies was a very interesting one. The offer of a joint working group is very important. All three institutions must undertake to think through with each other the issue of the agencies' future and area of work.
In Germany, the issue of agencies and the growth of agencies is in the public eye. The media resonance is always great. The reputation of the European Union is also at stake if we do not succeed in conveying to the outside world why we actually need these agencies and what role they play in the European Union.
We should also be pleased if the Commission could prove why programme management is more efficient and better value when done by the executive agencies than by the Directorates-General. This is a request that those of us concerned with the budget have already put forward on a number of occasions, but has still not been backed up thus far in writing by the relevant facts and figures.
Parliament's amendments serve to maintain an overview of the European agencies, and our urgent request to the Commission is to help us to bring more order into the agency landscape. As the Commissioner should know, we in Parliament trust the Commission on this issue. We know that this institution is our last resort, as it were, when it comes to creating order and transparency and providing a better overview in this regard.
I should like to thank my fellow Members from the other groups, and particularly Mrs Haug, the rapporteur on agencies from the Committee on Budgets, and the two rapporteurs Mr Mulder and Mrs Herczog from the Committee on Budgetary Control for their suggestions, all of which we have taken on board. I therefore believe that we have put forward the proposed and desired amendments by Parliament that are most pressing at the present time. I beg the Commissioner also to incorporate these amendments in the corresponding draft.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would also like to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Grässle, for her important work within the framework of these reports, which enhance the plans for a financial regulation for executive agencies.
At a time when the European Parliament is set to see its prerogatives strongly reinforced within the framework of the Treaty of Lisbon, I think it is particularly important to remember what our institution's competences are, obviously as co-decider of the budget. This Parliament, elected by direct universal suffrage by the citizens of the EU, must be able to do more and better to control the proper use of Community funds spent, this time by the executive agencies. I would like very briefly to highlight four points in this report, which seem essential to me if Parliament is to be able to play its role fully and make it as easy as possible for citizens to understand our institutions.
Firstly, I would also like to emphasise the need for better control over the use of assigned revenue. It seems important for the director of the agency to tell us about any transfers between titles exceeding the 10% threshold.
Secondly I should also highlight the importance of the figures for the establishment plan, as our fellow Member has just mentioned, whether for temporary staff, contract workers, seconded national experts, etc., so that we as the budgetary authority have a clear picture of the development of the human resources budgets of the agencies.
Thirdly, I think it is quite natural that we should be asking for a summary of the development of the agencies' budgets to be sent to the European Parliament each year, in accordance with the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors.
Fourthly and finally, the provisions in the report concerning the harmonisation of the deadlines for the discharge procedure should also give Parliament real control of the proper execution of the budget.
(FR) Madam President, I would like to take my turn at complimenting Mrs Grässle on the excellent work she has done, and obviously the Commission for this development concerning the agencies. I would like to highlight the very important provisions on the internal auditing of our agencies and suggest, following on from the comment by my fellow Member a moment ago, that we could work towards a consolidation, a sort of sub-consolidation in the EU's accounts for all agencies, so that third parties and particularly MEPs, have a picture of the development of the accounting mass represented by all the agencies of the European Union.
(PL) Madam President, in taking the floor in the debate devoted to amendment of the financial regulation for executive agencies and their offices, I would like to draw attention to two matters.
Firstly, there should be support for the rapporteur's proposal that directors of agencies be obliged to notify the European Parliament if they have transferred funds from operational to administrative in an amount that exceeds 10% of the ceiling.
Secondly, in view of the fact that executive agencies' functioning costs are covered by the budgets for individual programmes, the almost ten percent level of these costs has an impact. The failure to specify these costs in the case of the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency in particular has an impact when linked to the information that there is a shortfall of more than EUR 40bn for the projects that this agency deals with.
Finally, I would like to congratulate Mrs Gräßle on two very good reports.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me first of all summarise briefly the amendment to the Regulation on the financial regulation of executive agencies assigned various tasks in connection with the management of Community programmes.
This amendment, in line with Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure, was the joint work of the associated committee and the Committee on Budgets. I especially thank my fellow Members and Mrs Grässle and Mr Mulder for their close and excellent cooperation.
We proposed several amendments aimed at enabling these agencies to operate fluidly, enhancing accountability and expanding opportunities for closer democratic monitoring of the funds assigned to these bodies.
It is important to note that:
as regards the discharge procedure for these agencies, standardisation of deadlines is urgently needed in future;
the Court of Auditors has also pointed out that individuals involved in auditing and control work should not take part in budget implementation measures;
taking due account of the protection of personal data, a list with the names of persons who have cooperated with the agency and the remuneration received by these experts should be attached to the relevant agency's report on budgetary and financial management;
monitoring of the use of external experts by the agencies must be enabled.
Thank you for your kind attention.


5. Mobilisation of Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Odense Steel Shipyard/Denmark (


30. Development of the second generation Schengen information System (SIS II) (vote)


2. The escalation of violence in Mexico
The next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on the escalation of violence in Mexico.
author. - (ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by saying that Mexico is a great democracy that has progressed steadily over the last 20 years. It is a friend of the European Union and we share a Strategic Partnership Agreement. I would also like to say that Mexico is currently waging a very difficult war against organised drug trafficking.
Today in the European Parliament, however, we are talking about Mexico in the context of human rights, because there has been and continues to be a marked increase in violence, which affects Mexican people in particular, and because there have been repeated, serious complaints about human rights violations.
The resolution that the major political groups are going to adopt here today is based on respect and consensus; of course, it recognises the situation I have just described and urges Mexico to continue on the path towards rule of law and full democracy.
However, it also makes four important requests: it urges Mexico to ensure the right to a free press, because there have been attacks on journalists; to guarantee protection for the organisations that defend human rights, because those groups have been attacked and threatened; to guarantee protection for women who suffer violence, because many women have been murdered; and to avoid impunity and abuses of power by their police forces. This is what Parliament has asked of Mexico, in the spirit of friendship based on a favourable relationship with Mexico.
author. - (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this week we are celebrating International Women's Day. In this Parliament, we have seen a great many posters in all the languages of the European Union, saying that we can put a stop to violence against women. Today we are talking about violence in Mexico, and I think it is right that we should recognise that Mexican women, both indigenous and non-indigenous victims, receive the least protection from local and federal authorities.
Mexican women are victims of all forms of violence, from domestic violence to sexual violence and torture carried out by the army or the police, and they also become murder victims. Regrettably, up to now the response from the Mexican authorities has been ineffective, which is why we can now accurately say that we are looking at a case of almost total impunity.
Our resolution calls on the Mexican Government to fight against femicide, which is a harsh word, but an accurate one when we consider that almost all the murders involving female victims go unpunished. For example, during the past four years in Mexico, only 11% of the criminals who murdered almost 700 women have been sentenced.
At the same time, it would appear that women are the judicial system's favourite victims. There is no other way to explain how it was possible for two indigenous women, Alberta Alcántara and Teresa González, to be sentenced to 21 years in prison and to have now spent more than three years in jail for kidnapping six men from the Federal Investigations Agency - all by themselves - during an incident in a market. Let us hope that the judge, who will make a decision on the women's appeal in one week's time, realises how ridiculous and unjust the situation is.
However, violence against women starts in the home. I hope that Mexican legislators will soon make improvements to the General Law on Women's Access to a Life Free of Violence so that the different forms of violence and the mechanisms implementing the laws can be properly defined. It would also be right to establish domestic violence and rape within marriage as criminal offences.
Furthermore, in order for Mexican society to change and reject violence against women, it is important that schools deal with this issue as a basic matter of education for young people.
author. - (PL) For several years now, the authorities in Mexico, including, first and foremost, President Felipe Calderón, have been waging a bloody war against drugs gangs. Over 40 000 soldiers have been involved in the war, and several successes have been achieved. These successes include, undoubtedly, the arrests of the bosses of the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels, the destruction of over 23 000 hectares of opium crops and 38 000 hectares of marihuana, the closures of over 50 illegal laboratories which were producing narcotics and the arrests of over 45 000 people who were involved with this process.
We need to be aware that the Mexican drugs cartels generate annual incomes of many billions of dollars, which is incomparably more than the amounts allocated by the Mexican Government to tackling the narcotics problem. So the gangs are spending huge sums on corrupting politicians, judges and police officers. This is precisely why the authorities are losing the war. Since 2006, almost 15 000 people have been killed, and over 6 000 of them have been killed since last October. Journalists are especially in danger, as over 60 have been killed, including, recently, Jorge Ochoa Martínez.
We have to understand that without international involvement, Mexico will not win the war.
(Applause)
author. - (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mexico has a major problem with drugs trafficking and drug-related violence. To address this situation, the Government of President Felipe Calderón has adopted a tough stance in order to achieve its eradication: he has taken the decision to temporarily mobilise the armed forces, a move which has had a significant impact on the number of people arrested, the destruction of drugs and the confiscation of weapons. The army has accepted all the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission, including those concerning the investigation of complaints about their own conduct.
The Government also recognises that it needs to make substantial changes in the area of security and justice, and is implementing an ambitious reform of the justice system in order for it to be more transparent and to bring to justice those who commit crimes, while respecting human rights.
The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) wishes to show its solidarity with the Mexican people in the fight against drugs trafficking, and we support President Calderón in his willingness to combat organised crime.
Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction with this agreement, which unites the main political Groups of this Parliament.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since 2007 there has been a constant increase in human rights violations in Mexico.
According to the Mexican NGOs and media, more than 6 500 murders attributable to drugs cartels have been recorded for 2009 alone, the vast majority of which were in the state of Chihuahua. President Calderón's government has sent thousands of soldiers to the worst affected areas.
Since then, the violent acts committed by these military forces and by the police forces alike have increased with complete impunity. The NGOs are producing ever more reports and talking about crimes of state. Journalists, indigenous communities, and especially women, both indigenous and nonindigenous, are particularly affected. I met some of these women from San Salvador Atenco; they had been raped and tortured by the police forces. I was appalled at what they told me. The perpetrators of these acts committed in May 2006 still enjoy complete impunity.
Therefore we cannot share the concerns of the Mexican authorities, the agents of which regularly violate human rights. It follows that we shall not support the joint resolution and we shall table ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr President, the images of the brutal use of violence on the open street in the so-called war on drugs in Mexico reach us regularly via the mass media. The murder of hundreds of women, mostly workers in the north of the country, is making headlines and has spawned the term 'feminicide'. The European Parliament has produced its own report on this. Despite knowledge of the major increase in serious violations of human rights, the Mexican Government appears to be unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Pointing out the necessary relentlessness in the fight against drug dealers is no substitute for consistent government action. The major expansion of military presence and power, the competence of military courts for crimes committed by soldiers, the almost complete impunity - these are the real causes of the escalating violence in the country. Even the Mexican national human rights commission has repeatedly documented the increase in violent crime by the military.
The government itself does not want to admit the situation. It also continually hushes up crime. Yesterday, for example, there was a story going around in the media that the Ministry of Defence had paid out an awful lot of money to the families of victims of violence in order to buy their silence. Who were the perpetrators? They were soldiers. The EU must address the fight against impunity in all its relations with Mexico. Given the severity of the human rights violations, it is absolutely necessary for the EU not to update the Global Agreement with Mexico. It must not do so until there has been a substantial improvement in the human rights situation in that country.
The escalation of violence in the Mexican states in the area bordering the United States, especially in Ciudad Juárez, is deeply worrying. The events of recent months have been particularly bloody, as the intervention of the federal authorities in this region has also been accompanied by a significant rise in the number of crimes related to drug trafficking. Therefore, the war against drug traffickers comes on top of a war between rival criminal gangs, resulting in a series of murders of exceptional brutality.
I believe that Mexico is an extreme case highlighting the entire difficulty in taking firm action against crime in order to safeguard national security. It is extremely important that we, here in the European Parliament, send a clear signal to support the efforts made by the Mexican Government aimed at eradicating crime, thereby improving the situation of the civilian population.
At the same time, we must encourage the Mexican authorities to continue vital reforms in the area of consolidating the rule of law, especially the reform of the justice and penal systems.
Thank you.
The violence in Mexico is linked to drug trafficking and the social inequalities made worse by the economic crisis. Fighting impunity is key. It is vital to invest in the judicial system to try and punish criminals and to ensure protection of witnesses and victims, many of them young working women caught in the wave of violence by the drug traffickers.
It is shocking that Juárez is the world capital of feminicide, but even more shocking is the macho culture that explains the inaction of the authorities in prosecuting those responsible for these crimes and in protecting defenders of human rights, including journalists.
Europe must use the strategic partnership with Mexico to support constructively all those who fight for human rights. They are the same people who are fighting to defend the rule of law and democracy. Without human rights there is no rule of law or democracy.
Mr President, in this Chamber a moment ago, I heard a call not to sign the understanding with the Mexican authorities. I do not understand this suggestion. After all, we commend the President of Mexico - and those who spoke before me a moment ago also did so - for his determined fight against the drugs barons and the mafia. We should, therefore, commend the Mexican authorities for their action, while at the same time, of course, pointing out that they should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, and that in this fight they should still try to respect human rights. That is obvious. We have to understand the situation of a country which has been struggling with huge organised crime syndicates and the mafia for decades. If the president of the country declares war in this area, he should be given complete support. However, of course, we have been speaking, here, about journalists, and we have been speaking about other victims. It should be emphasised that these people should not be made the victims of discrimination.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (PT) Ladies and gentlemen, just this morning, the Mexican Trade Union of Electricians was surrounded by a police force of between 100 and 200 police officers. It is the same trade union that, after announcing a general strike, saw one of its leaders, Domingo Aguilar Vázquez, captured the next day on 16 March, and arrested on phony charges.
This attack on the freedom of trade unions in Mexico, conducted directly by the government, is even more shocking because we are talking here of the Mexican Federal Government not punishing crimes committed, for example, by their own military, or ineffectiveness in fighting drug trafficking.
Yes, the situation is complex. There are attacks by the armed forces on drug traffickers, but at the same time there are attacks against the trade unions. What happens is that, in a situation of ineffectiveness, impunity and rising authoritarianism, a democracy like the Mexican democracy spirals out of control.
This Parliament must vigorously condemn and, above all, call on the Mexican Government to finally stop being ineffective with regard to criminals and, apparently, so authoritarian with, for example, trade unions, workers and civil society movements.
- (FI) Mr President, I wish to highlight two issues in our resolution on Mexico.
Firstly, as we have heard, violence has been on the increase this year. Mexico is in the grip of large drug cartels and the violence they perpetrate is estimated to have cost 15 000 lives already. The situation is especially bad close to the border between Mexico and the United States of America. The Mexican Government is trying to bring the situation under control by means of a massive military and police operation. The strategy has also attracted a lot of criticism. Obviously, responsibility for the drug trade, money laundering and the problems these cause also extends to other countries, and Mexico needs to be offered assistance and cooperation.
Secondly, I want to mention recent reports by Amnesty International regarding the unwillingness on the part of authorities to protect human rights activists. Those who stand up for indigenous peoples and poor communities are at particular risk. When it becomes dangerous to promote human rights, many have to consider the risks of the work they do. Those on whose behalf the activists work then lose hope.
These matters, issues relating to the drug trade, and human rights must also be taken up for discussion in May, when we think about plans for cooperation at the next EUMexico Summit.
(RO) The Mexican Government must make a firm commitment to combating drug trafficking and respecting human rights and the rule of law.
Drug trafficking has resulted in acts of violence ending in losses of human life. The cities of Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez featured among the ten most dangerous cities in the world in 2009. Since 2007, 15 000 murders have been committed in the war against drugs, with the figure in 2009 alone reaching 7 724.
Young people and women are hit hardest by the trafficking and consumption of drugs. In Mexico the economic crisis may turn into a social conflict, with poverty and the lack of education being among the factors which can determine that young people become victims of drug consumption. In Mexico in 2010, approximately 7.5 million young people have no chance of being registered in the formal education system, which also means no hope of making a decent living.
In conclusion, I would say that the dialogue between the European Union and Mexico needs to be stepped up with the aim of promoting economic and social development, as well as respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Thank you.
(DE) Mr President, we often discuss dictatorships in this House. Mexico is not a dictatorship, but a democracy. We are debating individual cases of serious humans rights violations. For Mexico, that is not the key subject. The key subject is the fact that this large democracy, which is a strategic partner of ours, has been suffering from a serious, perhaps even fatal illness for decades.
It therefore requires the right treatment and the right doctor. President Calderón and his comrades-in-arms are that doctor. That does not mean that they are capable of using, or allowed to use, every treatment there is, but we must support them.
That is why I believe that paragraph 12 in the resolution, in which we state that we intend to make greater use of our financial instrument to reinforce good governance, the rule of law, the structures of a State under the rule of law against the disintegration of the State, against organised criminality, against that impunity, which has been quite rightly criticised, is so important. We cannot do that, however, by freezing or abandoning our contacts; rather, we must strengthen them.
(ES) Mr President, we are all concerned by the increase in violence in Ciudad Juarez, but I trust in the broad measures that the Mexican authorities have put in place in order to effectively tackle this complex situation. I also support the vigorous battle President Calderón is currently waging against drugs trafficking, which is a very serious global threat that concerns us all. That is why we should help the Mexican authorities in this difficult struggle.
Ladies and gentlemen, over the past 10 years, Mexico has gone through a very positive process of political and governmental modernisation. President Calderón is steadily promoting reforms. Mexico has also taken on greater international responsibilities and is playing an active role within, for example, the United Nations and the G-20.
In this Parliament, within my modest capabilities, I have always supported the establishment of a strategic partnership between the European Union and Mexico, which we finally achieved in 2008. I hope we can adopt an ambitious joint action plan or programme at the May Summit in Madrid, because the European Union and Mexico need to work together in many areas, both on a bilateral level and in multilateral forums, in order to confront challenges and threats together, including drugs trafficking and other forms of organised crime
- Mr President, Mexico has long been a primary conduit into the world's largest market for illegal narcotics, the United States. Mexico has therefore been scarred by the brutality and violence that go hand in hand with the drugs trade. Moreover, Mexico itself, as a country of 100 million people and a vital EU strategic partner, has increasingly - and sadly - become an important market for cocaine. The rising consumption by young people is especially worrying.
Drug-related violence in Mexico only seems to be getting worse, with ever more grisly murders and journalists who report on such cases being themselves targeted. The prevalence of unemployment and poverty probably does not help either and induces a climate of lawlessness in parts of Mexico. President Calderón faces enormous challenges but he is determined to meet them head-on, and the EU should support him robustly. Particularly we should support his efforts to reform and restructure the police and criminal justice system in order to break up the corrupt links between the drug cartels and law enforcement. I believe he is also quite justified in the need to use the army as a temporary emergency measure.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, an unprecedented rise in violence has created, within the country, a sense of deep insecurity amongst the population. The Commission is of course highly concerned at this situation. We know that the Mexican authorities are taking this seriously and have put in place a lot of measures to address the problem.
President Calderón's war on organised crime is its main priority. Apart from deploying a number of military across the country to fight organised crime, Mexico is making a tremendous effort to strengthen law enforcement and the judicial system.
In August 2008, a package of security measures was adopted which aims at reorganising the Mexican law enforcement and justice system. The justice reform passed by the Mexican Congress in 2008 has the potential to address the main systemic problems facing criminal justice in Mexico, although we are aware that the implementation of this reform will require a long-term commitment.
Mexico is also making a very serious effort to respond to the concerns over human rights abuses, in particular the impact of organised crime groups and vested interests of freedom of the media and freedom of expression, which have been brought to the attention of the EU by civil society organisations. In this connection, the Mexican Government established a special prosecutor for crimes committed against journalists in 2006.
It is making noticeable efforts in addressing other shortcomings, as seen in the approval of a federal law to eradicate violence against women and the appointment of a special prosecutor on this issue, and in the new federal law to combat trafficking in human beings.
As a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Mexico pledged to adopt a state policy on human rights and to remain open at international level with regard to human rights. The issue of the protection of human rights in the framework of the fight against organised crime and the integrity of human rights defenders are reflected in the recommendations accepted by Mexico as a result of its participation in the UN Universal Periodic Review.
Mexico has shown interest and readiness in discussing with the European Union all these issues, most recently during the session of the EU-Mexico Joint Committee held in Brussels on 26-27 November 2009. Indeed, this area constitutes the subject of dedicated cooperation.
On 3-4 December 2009, the EU and Mexico jointly organised an international seminar in Cancún on 'The Legitimate Use of Force and the Protection of Human Rights'. The seminar provided a venue to hold expert consultations on a draft policy document on the human rights accountability of local police forces.
The draft policy document was presented to the Quintana Roo local congress in the aftermath of the seminar. This initiative is complementary to the recently adopted federal law on the reform of the judiciary system and could be replicated by other federal states.
We believe that the EU-Mexico Strategic Partnership provides the best framework for the EU to support Mexico in the areas of public security and the rule of law. The Strategic Partnership executive document currently under negotiation foresees the establishment of a formal EU-Mexico policy dialogue on security issues, as well as increased cooperation with relevant EU agencies such as CEPOL, Europol, Eurojust and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
From the Commission side, we are already supporting a project from 2004-2007 to strengthen the administration of justice in Mexico. Further cooperation in the field is foreseen for the period 2011-2013.
In conclusion, it is clear that Mexico is facing important challenges in the areas of public security and respect for human rights. It is not easy and the situation is far from ideal, but it is also fair to say that it is showing willingness and determination to ensure the compatibility of an effective public security policy with respect for human rights. We will continue to support Mexico in its efforts.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place after the debates.


Gambling and sports betting in the Internal Market (debate)
The next item is the Oral Question to the Commission by Arlene McCarthy, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on gambling and sports betting in the internal market - B6-0443/2006).
author. - Mr President, I am not the author of the question but the Chairperson of the committee that is taking the question forward on behalf of Members. I want to stress that the members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection took a unanimous decision to table this oral question to ask the Commissioner for an update regarding the ongoing infringement proceedings against nine Member States concerning restrictions imposed on sports betting markets.
The committee would like the Commission to tell us in particular what progress has been made on the infringement proceedings launched on 4 April 2006 and what future steps are planned in this area. Is the Commissioner considering a legal framework for online gambling?
As we are on the brink of agreeing the Services Directive, we are well aware of the need for Member States to fulfil their Treaty obligations under Article 49 as regards the free movement of services. The Commissioner will be aware of the committee's decision to remove gambling services from the Services Directive, not least because of the complexity of the gambling market. However, the freedom to provide services has in the case of the gambling sector clashed with national law in a number of Member States, which have introduced restrictive laws limiting the cross-border supply of online betting and gambling services.
We support the Commission in ensuring that these laws are compatible with Article 49, while respecting the rights of Member States to protect the public interest, as long as the rules are necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory, i.e. not discriminating against other EU operators. It is hypocritical, on public interest grounds, for a Member State to prevent other EU online operators from entering a national market, while at the same time allowing its own national online market to grow considerably while not applying those public interest rules. That is the issue we hope the Commission will address.
I would like to take the debate in a different direction. I believe that we need an EU response to the challenge of the global online gambling market. This is a market set to grow to a value of EUR 20 billion by 2010. In 2003, in the EU-25 commercial gaming industries, lotteries and casinos and betting services were worth some EUR 51.5 billion and there are some 2300 worldwide online casino sites. In the UK, for example, during the World Cup football matches, 30% of those making online bets on UK services were women. It crosses all classes and all generations. The rapid growth of online services and remote gambling and betting services has de facto already erased national boundaries.
However, let us not follow the US model of pulling up the drawbridge by enacting the 2006 Bush legislation - the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, making it a crime for banks to process or transfer funds via online betting sites. This is simply protectionism hiding behind a smokescreen of the so-called protection of consumers against gambling excesses. In reality, it is a law to stop foreign operators from competing or undermining the US casino and gambling market, while the States of Nevada and Las Vegas continue to develop their own online and remote gambling services.
I believe it would be good if the Commissioner, on behalf of the 25 Member States, would engage in the campaign to get an international agreement on standards and rules in regulating eGambling. This is one way to minimise the differences between not only the international community but also the EU Member States, to ensure in the end that all states opt in to high standards both for operators and consumers. The objective would be to ensure that we develop standards to protect vulnerable consumers, in particular young adults and minors, to engender a sense of social responsibility from good operators and investors and to ensure that gambling is not used as a source of crime or financing criminal activities.
The internet genie is out of the bottle: some 3.3 million EU citizens are regular online gamblers. This is a market that will grow. The EU should therefore be part of a wider international campaign for good and high standards. We need greater international cooperation to curb problem gambling and more research into the extent of participation in remote gambling. The study commissioned by the European Commission on gambling services in the internal market highlights the need to find common international standards and regulatory requirements that will protect EU citizens while allowing the market to operate.
I hope the Commissioner will feel encouraged by tonight's debate to continue with infringement proceedings. However, in reality, it is a thankless task, which takes years to resolve, often not with a satisfactory conclusion, and I believe the best way forward is for the EU now to be a leader, driving good and high common international standards that can help minimise the differences, protect consumers and force the operators to be socially responsible.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, gambling services are clearly services within the scope of the Treaty, and Treaty principles, including those on the freedom of establishment and the freedom of services, apply to gambling. The Commission has an obligation to ensure that Member States' legislation is fully compatible with the Treaty. Therefore the Commission decided in April to ask seven Member States for more information on their legislation that restricts the supply of sports betting services. The Commission has responded to a number of complaints from operators in the sports betting area.
Having met with the authorities of all seven Member States, my services are now examining the formal replies received from each. At this stage I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that examination. I should like to inform Parliament that I expect that to be completed in the next few weeks. Based on that examination I would put forward a proposal to the college of Commissioners on how to proceed. It would then be a matter for them to decide on the next steps.
In addition to the seven cases opened in April, the Commission decided, on 12 October, to send formal requests for information related to the gambling sector to three other Member States. Complaints from operators, to which the Commission is responding, relate mainly to sports betting services. That is why nine of the ten cases opened so far related to the provision of sports betting services, some of them online. However, in October the Commission also enquired about national legislation in Austria, which prohibits advertisements from casinos licensed and operating in other Member States. We also have concerns that Austrian legislation requires national casinos to protect only nationals from excessive losses, without having similar protection for foreign players.
As guardian of the Treaty, the Commission will examine all complaints that it receives. However, at the same time I do not underestimate the sensitivities that exist in many Member States on the question of gambling. Member States are fully entitled to protect general interest objectives, such as the protection of consumers. However those measures must be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. In particular, they must be applied to national and non-national operators in a systematic and consistent way.
The Commission does not seek to liberalise the market in any way, but rather to be assured that whatever measures Member States have in place are fully compatible with existing EU law. Member States are well aware of the case law of the European Court of Justice, which I expect will develop further.
The Commission accepted Parliament's request to exclude all gambling services from the scope of the draft Services Directive. It was made quite clear to me at that time that the regulation of gambling should be left to the Member States. I fully agree, provided that such national legislation is compatible with the Treaty. In the context of the infringement proceedings I am willing to work in close cooperation with the Member States to ensure compatibility of national legislation with Community requirements and allow for appropriate and effective protection to be put in place, for example to safeguard consumers and to protect minors.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, would you allow me to make a point first, before you start the clock. According to the agenda, this debate was scheduled to start at 10.30. That was quite clear and I notice that a number of my colleagues made an effort to be here at 10.30. So I am disturbed to find that I missed most of the speech of my colleague Mrs McCarthy, because the debate appears to have started at least ten minutes early. I do not think that is acceptable, if I may say so, and I am sorry that your predecessor in the Chair has gone away. If the schedule for the day says a debate starts at 10.30, I submit to you that it should start at 10.30, even if there has to be a short adjournment.
Perhaps I could now move on and if you will restart the clock, please, I shall make my substantive points.
I very much welcome the fact that Mr McCreevy is here to address this issue and I am pleased that, under the leadership of Mrs McCarthy, we have taken an initiative that I hope will shed some light on this issue. As the Commissioner made clear, this is a highly sensitive issue and it involves many aspects of public interest. But nevertheless, from the point of view of the operation of the Single Market, which is also of overriding interest to us, the situation is, as you suggested, deeply unsatisfactory.
Clearly we await the results of your investigations but I suggest that, at the very least, it would be appropriate for you to issue some form of guidelines to Member States on their attitude to receiving applications from reputable and well-established gambling operators who simply want to be able to operate in other EU countries under the law of those countries, which they are perfectly entitled to do. One of the things you did not mention, but which seems to me to be rather extraordinary in terms of discriminatory practice, is that some Member States have tried to restrict access to those markets on the grounds that they do not want to encourage gambling. Yet at the same time those Member States are promoting participation in their national lotteries with billions of euros across Europe. Clearly that is entirely inconsistent. I believe it is sensible and good that the European Court of Justice has struck down some of the restrictions, but I think those guidelines will be important. As Mrs McCarthy said, in terms of operation and protecting the public interest respectable operations are extremely important.
The big issue that we have to face is online gambling. Whether Member States want to preserve a monopoly or not, the fact is that consumers are taking advantage of online gambling. I believe it is much better, in the public interest, that we have well-regulated online gambling services than uncontrolled services which come into Europe from other countries outside the remit of the European Union.
Before giving the floor to the next speaker, I am going to respond to a procedural motion.
You are absolutely right; the debate was indeed scheduled for the time that you indicated. However, it was explained on the European Parliament's website, at the start of the afternoon, that the debate could start slightly earlier if question time finished earlier than scheduled, which was the case. Furthermore, the services tried to contact all of the speakers. They managed to contact all of them, except you, Mr Harbour, but I think that your presence in the Chamber this evening shows that you have not missed a great deal of the debate. That being said, I felt it my duty to explain the situation to you.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 'Rien ne va plus' ['No more bets'] is the curious opening of the recent opinion delivered by the Advocate General Dámaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer to the European Court of Justice, which had been asked to rule for the third time on Italian legislation on gambling, following the Zenatti ruling and the Gambelli ruling, the latter rightly referred to in the recitals of the oral question under discussion.
It is truly important to be familiar not only with the Commission's findings, but also with the recent measures by the Member States against whom infringement proceedings have been opened, and, specifically, the steps that the Commission intends to take. I believe that it is also important for there to be moderate but definite rules in this sector, also involving the European Parliament directly. That is the only way to help Member States exposed to the risk of appeals and negative judgments in what remains a worthy attempt to protect individuals, in particular minors and the most vulnerable, as has already been said.
The explosion of gambling, lotteries and online betting is a problem that cannot be left to market liberalisation, even if the difficulty concerning the non-discrimination principle is obvious. I must just point out that the 'Services Directive', which has already been referred to here, excludes gambling precisely for reasons of public order and consumer protection.
on behalf of the ALDE-DE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I thank the Commissioners and my fellow Members for taking the trouble to discuss this topic, which is, after all, an exciting one. We have left gambling and Internet gambling outside of the Services Directive because we do not dare take a decision on it. It still falls within the scope of Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty and at the moment - as is also evident from the 11 infringement procedures - there is enormous legal uncertainty among the Member States and businesses. How should we tackle it?
I am pleased that the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has put this oral question, for the problems are, after all, real. There is the problem that on the one hand, it is very lucrative for the Member States in terms of tax revenue, but on other hand, it also brings with it social problems. The main problem, though, is that, if there is no sound legal framework in place within a market where serious money can be made, this opens the floodgates to a huge number of illegal practices in which criminal organisations reign supreme.
I therefore believe that the politicians, and I hope that the Commissioner will agree with me on this, must take up the gauntlet and dare take decisions. We must not surrender ourselves to the very wise judges in Luxembourg who then have the onerous task of biting the bullet. I fear that many more judgments from the European Court of Justice will follow as long as we as politicians do not take the right decisions.
I hope that the Commission and the Council will get there in the end. If not, I hope that Parliament itself will produce an own-initiative report in order to guarantee legal certainty, which is desperately needed given the many problems that exist, including addiction, public health problems, illicit funds, money laundering, and the list goes on. We must solve this with a firm, clear directive on gambling and Internet gambling. I hope that the Commissioner will advise us as to how Parliament should tackle this.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, I welcome the Commissioner's statement that we must protect minors. To do that it is imperative to take a long hard look at Ireland's policy of having no age limit on gambling with the state-run tote. Children in Ireland are permitted to place bets at greyhound tracks and horse tracks if these are part of that tote. Other forms of gambling are limited to over-18s. Video evidence exists of Irish children as young as four years of age legally placing bets with the state-run tote. It is not uncommon for birthday, Christmas and first communion money to wind up in the Irish state tote and, ultimately, with the Irish Exchequer.
The Chief Executive of Horse Racing Ireland, when asked his opinion of child gambling in Ireland, said that it was no problem and that he wanted to develop the customer of the future. For years you, Commissioner McCreevy, as Irish Minister for Finance, refused to amend the Tote Act and outlaw child betting in Ireland. As Commissioner, will you now change your attitude and, at this late date, support restrictions on child online betting, at race tracks, in bookmakers, on airplanes and anywhere else that this insidious practice persists?
(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, from the very first vote in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, we decided to leave gambling activities, including lotteries and bets, outside of the scope of the Services Directive. It may be that some, as Mr Manders said a moment ago, were frightened of taking a decision. I am convinced that many felt that the Member States could be given quite a bit of freedom to handle this complex issue in their own way, in tune with the sensitivities and the situations in their countries, according to their own traditions.
It goes without saying that, in this respect, the Member States should respect the Treaty, and we already know the answer of the Court to a number of prejudicial questions that have previously been asked. I hope, Commissioner, that the questions that are yet to be asked will not immediately prompt you to advise the Commission to start issuing rules and regulations. Whilst the Commission is, of course, the guardian of the Treaties, and we expect it to take its role seriously, this can also be done with some restraint.
Getting the internal market to operate is necessary and positive in every respect, but this need not be at the expense of the effective protection of law and order, security and the consumer's mental health. I hope there will also be room for the Member States which, via state monopolies or not, as the case may be, commit to channelling the passion for gambling, monitor the fairness of the game and to donate the financial gain, as and when they can, for cultural, social and sports goals. Clear legal rules can certainly help, but legislation is not always the answer. I am certainly not talking on behalf of the whole of the group, but on behalf of a number of group colleagues who were unable to take the floor this evening.
(ES) Mr President, gambling is not just another service, it is a dangerous activity. It is dangerous because people's innocence and ignorance is being exploited. In the majority of our Member States, gambling is currently subject to regulation.
I do not understand how it can be possible for supranational bodies now to be planning to impose a liberalisation of gambling services on the Member States, when the majority of our societies do not accept it.
The United States Congress recently banned on-line gambling, and it seems to me that, at the moment, we should follow the US example in the European Union, on the one hand, in order to protect our consumers from mafia organisations and, secondly, in order to protect all those social institutions in each of the Member States that currently rely on legal forms of gambling permitted by national authorities.
I therefore believe that the Commission is right to look into the issue of gambling, but it must deal with it from the point of view of consumer protection and the protection of the institutions currently benefiting from legal gambling in the majority of our Member States.
(DE) Commissioner McCreevy has also had an extremely tiring day today, and so he will understand our desire to present the matter to him with the necessary clarity and brevity.
In my personal opinion, gambling and the abundance of lotteries have two different elements. On the one hand, there is the truly cross-border market for online providers that can only be regulated at European level. As Mr Medina-Ortega pointed out, the US has already managed to regulate its market. Europe, too, can resolve the issue of the online market only by joining with the Member States and introducing Europe-wide regulation.
On the other hand, there is the market in traditional games of chance and traditional sports betting, which tend to take place in written form. In contrast to the infringement proceedings opened by the Commission - Commissioner McCreevy, in other words - we should proceed according to the principle that, if the Member States are succeeding in preventing addiction effectively by orienting their national monopolies towards a range of services that is as limited as possible and offers the greatest possible consumer protection, they should be given the chance to retain these monopolies in future - under the control and auspices of European law and the European Commission.
It must be ensured, however, that the monopolies that the Member States already have truly pursue just one objective, namely the prevention of addiction, and that Member States do not use them to pursue other objectives, such as aiding the recovery of public finances or promoting sport.
In this context, I would be delighted if Parliament and the Commission together could agree on a regime that, on the one hand, establishes European regulation of the online market and, on the other, maintains the national regulations in the field of monopolies for traditional sports betting, provided these are compatible with the internal market.
(PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the exclusion of gambling, including lotteries, from the Services Directive appeared to have introduced a measure of clarity to the sector, but we need to go further. We are aware of a number of complicated aspects involving certain types of gambling and betting. It is therefore necessary to guarantee consumer protection and to ensure effective monitoring of the financial circuits relating to such activities in order to prevent or combat money laundering.
Naturally, we must not confuse the appropriate protection of the consumer with the undue protectionism that any particular Member State may want or may employ. In any event, however, it should be pointed out that every Member State has the right to regulate the phenomenon of betting for money on its territory until such time as another, European-level legal instrument appears. In this regard, online gambling deserves special attention from the Commission and immediately from Parliament, as previous speakers have mentioned and as is clear from the debate. Lastly, I welcome the fact that the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection raised this issue, with the result that we have made some progress in clarifying it this evening.
(FR) Mr President, I am going to try to be both quick and slow. This report is timely, and I might add that I consider the remarks made just now to be positive. Everyone would like the European Union to intervene using methods other than simple case-law. This issue does, in fact, involve a range of businesses and services: casinos, lotteries and other games of chance via traditional means or via the Internet. Therefore, this goes far beyond simple online sporting bets, which is the subject of Mrs McCarthy's question.
While it is normal for these services to apply the principles of the internal market, Commissioner, freedom should not go hand in hand with the law of the jungle! For reasons to do with the general interest, health, morality and security, these services need to be regulated and controlled. The Member States must be able to authorise and control public and private operators in the context of fair competition. The importance of 'cross-border' games does, however, require us to go beyond the national framework. In this regard, the recent decision taken by the United States is the demonstration that, if those who play and who make others play cannot be controlled, then it is better to take too many precautions than not enough.
That is why, Commissioner, I consider the Commission's current approach, which is based exclusively on the Treaties and on the Court of Justice, to be inadequate and dangerous. It is clear today that the idea that the national laws are compatible with the Treaties is an unsatisfactory one. Commissioner, you must work alongside Parliament to establish complementary legislation that can organise this extremely important sector, both politically and economically, in a sound and rational manner. Let this sector develop, but let it do so in complete safety for the people and for the Member States!
(EL) Mr President, over recent years the system of the state monopoly in the gambling sector, which prevails in the majority of the Member States of the European Union, has been on the receiving end of more and more attacks from mainly private interests.
At the European Union summit in Edinburgh in December 1992, the European Council decided, given the principle of subsidiarity, not to regulate gambling and to leave it under the sole jurisdiction of the Member States. The directive adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2000 makes provision for the express exemption of gambling from its scope. The draft 2006 directive on services makes precisely the same provision. Given the peculiarities of the gambling sector, the Court of Justice of the European Communities acknowledges the competence of the Member States to regulate the gambling market in what they consider to be the best way possible.
Mr President, Commissioner, one of the most important reasons for these decisions is the fact that there is a high degree of risk of addition inherent in the gambling sector, especially of young people, and of crimes being committed, such as fraud, money laundering and so on, and I personally believe that only the state can create the control, guarantee, reliability and transparency mechanisms needed in order to protect consumers.
Finally, I am of the opinion that, once the gambling market is liberalised, the system of support for sports in Europe will collapse, taking cultural and social actions and subsidies with it, such as the fight against drugs, education and support for people with disabilities or special needs who mainly have financial support from the state gambling organisation. We believe in the free market, but do not occasionally ignore the risks inherent in uncontrolled gambling.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, for regulatory reasons, we have exempted games of chance and casinos from the Services Directive. I say this despite being a firm supporter of strengthening the internal market. We did not want to throw the baby out with the bath water, however.
Secondly, there are many risks associated with games of chance, and so the argument regarding competition law and the internal market should not be the only one used by the Commission in support of infringement proceedings.
Thirdly, a clear definition is needed. When we talk about 'games of chance', what is covered by the term? Given the differences in the treatment of online markets, sports betting, machines, casinos and lotteries, a single definition is needed to ensure these are dealt with the same way everywhere, and a single legal framework is probably also required.
Fourthly, I should like to point out to the Commissioner that there are other important fields, too, to be taken into consideration, such as consumer protection, health, taxation, international trade, the problem of money laundering, the prevention of addiction and the fight against crime, including organised crime.
Fifthly, almost all Member States regulate the field of games of chance. Eleven have special legislative models, and four use the limited-licence model.
Sixthly, in 2004, state lotteries achieved sales of EUR 63 billion, which is an average per capita net expenditure of EUR 140.
Seventhly, that means that approximately 33% of all takings go on good causes and tax. In the event of liberalisation of the private sector this would be just 3%.
Eighthly, it is estimated that the industry generates approximately 13 billion jobs in the EU.
Ninthly, the sale of lottery tickets accounts for 195 000 jobs within the EU.
I would ask the Commissioner to consider these arguments when making his assessment.
Mr President, I should like to make one point. Much attention has been paid in this debate to young people and the effects of gambling addiction on them, and yet more people under the age of 12 are trafficked or forced into prostitution because of drug or alcohol addiction and abuse than the gambling addiction that is the subject of our debate tonight.
Member of the Commission. There is no specific Community legislation governing gambling. If and how Member States wish to regulate gambling services at national, regional or local level is therefore a matter for each Member State to decide for itself. But the general principles of Community law and the Treaty continue to apply and any national legislation must respect those principles. The diversity of national approaches can lead to legal uncertainty for service providers and their customers, especially where national legislation fails to respect Community law.
Tonight's debate helps to illustrate once more the diversity of opinion with regard to gambling services. I am, of course, aware of calls for a specific Community regulatory framework for gambling services. There are equally strong views opposing such Community intervention. In my experience, the first requirement in trying to find a solution is to have a clear understanding of the problem and of the policy options available. The Commission recently published a study carried out on its behalf by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. The study illustrates the complexity and diversity of national regulatory approaches. Should Parliament believe that, over and above our efforts to ensure the application of fundamental Treaty principles, more should be done to ensure legal clarity, I look forward to hearing Parliament's detailed views on what precisely the issues are that warrant Community intervention and what policy options would command a sufficient degree of consensus for a meaningful solution at Community level. In the absence of such a political consensus, legal certainty may ultimately only be provided by the European Court of Justice.
I should like to add just a few more words to this debate. Mr Harbour put it fairly succinctly when he made the point that there was a great deal of inconsistency amongst many of the Member States, against whom we are now taking some action. We shall probably be taking action against some more. If Member States, their governments and their legislatures want to have very restrictive laws on gambling, etc., they may do so on public policy grounds. But they cannot do the things that Mr Harbour has referred to. They cannot spend millions and millions advertising gambling services for their own national operators or their own national, publicly-owned operators. They cannot allow their own national operators and bar everybody else. If Member States feel, as some Members of this House obviously do, that gambling is a greater scourge than alcohol addiction, tobacco addiction and all these other addictions put together, then they should ban it for everybody and allow no gambling at all in their Member State. That is one option. Then nobody would complain. The Commission would not take action against them and no one would worry about it at all. But it is a bit hypocritical for Member States to allow millions to be spent promoting gambling and at the same time allow nobody else to play the game.
In all Member States gambling is regulated to some extent. The point made by Mrs McCarthy about international standards for online gambling is quite a good idea in itself, but first some form of consensus would be needed among the 25 Member States. We can start by getting consensus in this Parliament, but I do not think we will. I am certain that we will not get it in the Council of Ministers. I have about the same chance of getting consensus in the Council of Ministers and Parliament as I have of winning the lottery this weekend. Those would be the odds against it. So there is much to commend what Mrs McCarthy says, and if there was a consensus I would like to go in that direction, but my experience tells me that it would be very difficult.
If you read the executive summary in the recent study, which, if I am correct, comes to 51 pages, and save yourself reading the other couple of hundred pages, it does not come down heavily on one side or the other.
(comments off-microphone from Mr Toubon)
Well, I do not think my honourable friend Mr Toubon has read the report, but you can see from that how complex this problem is and the many different ways it is regulated. It will show you what a gargantuan task it would be to head down that road.
In my political life I have not been afraid to take on impossible causes and tilt at windmills and run into brick walls, but I think that if we did attempt some kind of harmonisation of this area, what we would end up with, if anything, would be the most illiberal piece of legislation ever to go through any House anywhere in the world, because it is not possible. I have recognised for a long time that there are great differences of opinion here, long before I came to this conclusion. I recognise that throughout Europe, and even in my home country, there would be very different views about this. Some people, I know, think that it is worse than drinking addiction, worse than tobacco addiction, worse than anything possible, but others do not. I know which category I fit into, but I think trying to get some harmonisation in this area is going to be a long, long process.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 142)
(MT) Some Member States have unilaterally decided to introduce legislation preventing Europeans from using Internet gambling sites run by companies registered in other European Union countries.
This violates the principle of unrestricted movement of services between Member States, as well as Directive 98/34 EC which stipulates that, prior to introducing regulations concerning information technology services, a state must inform all other Member States and the Commission.
Last June, in response to a parliamentary question, I was informed that the matter was the subject of an investigation by the Commission.
May we know the stage this investigation has reached, and whether any measures have been taken?
I agree that it is time this rapidly developing sector were governed by a legal structure that contained standards and regulations governing this service in a serious manner.
These regulations would protect consumers and minors while, at the same time, permitting serious operators to work freely in all Member States of the European Union.


14. Request for defence of immunity of Gérard Onesta (vote)


Budget support to developing countries (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Charles Goerens, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the future of EU budget support to developing countries.
Mr President, I will say straight away that there are no miracle solutions to the problems that go with insecurity and poverty. One only has to look back over the different types of relationship we had with developing countries over the 20th century.
We can put behind us for good the colonial era, which was marked by the appropriation of entire continents by the old European colonial powers.
The next, postcolonial stage, which was characterised by a somewhat paternalistic approach, produced results that although perhaps not insignificant, were nonetheless highly unsatisfactory compared with the southern countries' considerable needs, especially in the areas of health, education and basic economic development.
Over the last few decades, a policy of cooperation, based on a set of values including human rights, respect for minorities, upholding democratic principles and the rule of law has gradually become the norm.
This policy, which the European Union claims to its credit, focuses more on treating our partner countries as being in charge of their own development, hence the notions of partnership, political dialogue, and above all, ownership by the partner countries of their own development.
Indeed, the phrase 'budget support' is in keeping with the latter kind of relationship. 'Budget support' refers to the transfer of financial resources from a funding agency outside the partner country's treasury, under the proviso that the country abide by the agreed conditions governing payments. At first sight, budget support may seem to be a risky undertaking. However, this is not true when the necessary precautions are taken to ensure that the funds are used wisely. All disbursements - and I must stress this point - are made on the premise that the recipient country has the necessary capacity to manage the funds. This means that the country must first have in place a strategy to combat poverty that addresses the basic needs of the inhabitants in question. This is also known as endogenous development, and is the only real form of lasting development.
The Commission, moreover, is very aware of the conditions that the recipient countries must meet, and has ensured that a fail-safe system is in place to prevent funds from being diverted in developing countries. As for the countries themselves, there is every reason for them to build up their capacity to engage with local communities, and with their parliaments of course, first and foremost.
Another benefit that is worth mentioning is that better control of public finances by the beneficiaries of budget support can also have a healthy effect on their taxation systems' capacity to bring in additional revenue.
Nonetheless, budget support is not a cure-all, nor is it a funding instrument that all countries are able to make use of: far from it, in fact. One of the consequences of the strict conditions imposed is that they rule out a large number of developing countries.
Mr President, I would like to end my speech by adding that I urge everyone to adopt my proposed amendment to paragraph 1. If it is not adopted, I will have to vote against my own report, as the statements that second-guess the Commission's intentions are purely gratuitous and not at all justified.
As has been confirmed to me during our consultations, the Commission has taken all the necessary steps to ensure that the disbursements fulfil the precautionary conditions to which I just referred.
Lastly, I would like to say that paragraph 11 goes a little too far. It aims to promote budget support as basically the only form of development cooperation. This is going too far. It is not in keeping with the realistic outlook that the Commission has maintained throughout these discussions.
(CS) Mr President, this report contains substantial arguments in favour of increasing budgetary support forms of development aid, instead of the traditional project-based approach. It would also be a good idea for both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to cooperate with the Commission on the establishment of independent indicators to assess how effectively financial support funded by European taxpayers is being used. In view of the fact that some countries, such as Rwanda or Uganda, have demonstrated their ability to manage public finances better than others, it would be a good idea for the governments and parliaments in countries receiving development aid to share this positive experience, and to cooperate in the establishment of the assessment indicators. In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the high quality and broad scope of the two reports, both that of Mr Goerens and the following report of Mr Kaczmarek. I would also like to comment on this report later.
(ES) Mr President, budget support is currently one of the most important forms of aid. We are at a crucial moment, since the Commission is committed to increasing the funds destined for budget support over coming years.
I believe that budget support is compatible with other forms of aid, as long as there is long-term commitment and better coordination between donors, and simplification of procedures.
The Commission should adopt a dynamic approach towards the criteria on admissibility, and the results indicators should be established on the basis of poverty reduction objectives being met.
I believe that budget support should prioritise those programmes with the greatest impact on poverty reduction, and this is why we feel that the health and education ministries are of fundamental importance. In the same way, the gender perspective must also be incorporated into budget support.
Another of the areas of potential highlighted in the report is that budget support helps to strengthen public management systems, and the audit and control capacity of developing countries.
Lastly, Mr President, I believe that the national parliaments, and the local and non-state authorities in developing countries should be informed and be able to make suggestions throughout all the phases of budget support.
(FI) Mr President, I take a very sceptical view of direct budget support, because I believe that it can encourage the trade in weapons, for example. Something that I would like to draw people's attention to is the notion that there should be tighter scrutiny of the EU's budget as a whole, but also of aid and this budget support, and these processes should be more transparent, so that people know what their money is being spent on.
It would be interesting to know if the Commission has thought about whether every month on the Internet there should be information available to the public concerning the results achieved by the financial assistance which the EU provides. I believe that it would help people to be more vigilant and more obliging, because they would know that their money is reaching its destination. Now, unfortunately, it does not all get to where it is supposed to, by any means: it is subject to abuse and corruption, and it is used to buy arms. I would propose that each month the EU starts to post on the Internet the results of what has been achieved through development aid.
(PT) Mr President, there is an essential starting point in this debate which some among us at times forget or attempt to hide. For decades, centuries, relations between the so-called industrialised countries and what are termed developing countries have been founded upon unequal trade and upon the dependency and underdevelopment of the latter, which are looked on as sources of supply for raw materials and cheap labour.
Centre-periphery relations, peculiar to the capitalist system currently in force at a global scale, are intrinsically unjust and unequal. These relations are upheld by the policies imposed by institutions such as the World Trade Organisation or the International Monetary Fund, with their programmes of structural adjustment, and by means of instruments such as the suffocating external debt and its servicing. It is all this that should be questioned and profoundly changed, and because of all this the policy of development aid should not be looked upon as an act of charity by the richest towards the poorest, but instead as a necessity dictated by the criteria of fundamental justice. The report, which contains positive aspects, but which is not free from contradiction, does not, unfortunately, address these and other essential questions.
(RO) Mr President, I think that the budget support granted to developing countries is more effective than project-based funding. It helps reduce the costs relating to projects and their fragmented operation. Another benefit is that contributions can be adapted to each country's specific requirements based on an ongoing dialogue between donors and beneficiaries. I should stress how important the transparency of this process is. In this respect, it is vital to have the active involvement of the European Commission, local civil society and national parliaments. The principle of shared ownership of the funds' implementation is also a crucial factor contributing to their effectiveness.
I believe that the EU must retain conditionality as a basis for budget support. This will help guarantee respect for human rights in developing countries.
Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur for his great report. I very much agree that budget support is a very important instrument. It does not help with everything, but it has the potential to increase country ownership and enhance parliamentary control and oversight by civil society, and it can contribute to accountability.
Of course it only works if, at the same time, you strengthen civil society organisations, parliaments and courts of auditors. In the end it does not mean that we should engage less if we just give money to a country, it actually means engaging more, in policy dialogue, etc. But we cannot expect a development which took Europe decades, if not millennia, to happen within a month. You cannot confuse defectiveness with something that you can see in a weekly update reporting that this or that has happened. Education or health sectors, for example, do not spring up within a week or two. For proper, sustainable growth and development we actually need more time; we need to take a longer view.
(SK) Mr President, I realise that providing budget support to developing countries is an important contribution that can help improve the financial capacity of public spending in such countries. As there is a lack of government accountability in many countries for the handling of these funds, however, it is very important for us to consider sensitively whether a particular country is truly capable of managing our budget aid effectively and responsibly. I therefore view the efforts of Mr Goerens to clarify the rules on European budget aid as a meaningful attempt towards the more efficient and more rational management of EU funds, and an attempt that is worthy, in my personal opinion, of our broad support.
(PL) Mr President, EU budget support for developing countries is exceptionally important. We should examine the negative as well as the positive effects of such support. Without doubt, it has a direct effect on the development of economic potential. Nevertheless, we must not forget the possible risks involved with budget support. These could include difficulties in monitoring countries outside the EU and possible irregularities involved in distributing and utilising the funds.
However, I do believe that this support is very important and should be continued. This is also in the indirect interests of the European Union. It results in much more rapid economic growth in those countries we support and so contributes to improvements in their economic situation, which through trade also has a positive effect on Member States and their markets. The allocated funding facilitates the stabilisation of internal situations in trouble spots and a significant reduction in poverty indicators. This aid is important. However, we must try to introduce controls for EU funding and monitor it more efficiently so that it truly supports the building of economies, and is not earmarked for undesirable aims.
(GA) Mr President, in general, I am in favour of this budgetary support for developing countries, but to be honest I am somewhat doubtful about its effectiveness.
The idea of budgetary support for developing countries goes back to the Marshall Plan and is seen as perhaps the most effective way of implementing the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda. Indeed, the European Union spent EUR 13 billion on this from 2003 to 2009.
Obviously, some good has come of it. But I am just wondering how effective it really is and, particularly, how we can justify that type of expenditure, because it is difficult to assess the effect in terms of the twin objectives of poverty reduction and the strengthening of democracy in the countries that are recipients of this aid. I would like an objective view. There are different views but certainly an objective view would be welcome.
Mr President, I have asked to speak again because some speakers have said that the report is not detailed enough. I would ask them to re-read the written report, which sets out all the conditions. They are even stricter than the conditions that had been called for.
I refer in particular to paragraph 32, which mentions the fact that the Commission systematically bases its approach on results derived from performance indicators; or paragraph 33, which mentions strategic decisions, or paragraph 34, which draws attention to the fact that many countries are excluded from budget support because of certain major shortcomings and lack of capacity, and weak governance in particular.
Everyone who has criticised the report ought to bear in mind that budget support is not within every country's reach. The countries must abide by extremely strict conditions, and very few hiccups are found to occur, as the report by the European Court of Auditors confirms. I must stress the fact that the International Monetary Fund is involved in every decision, and that, moreover, the Commission seeks approval from the IMF before making any disbursements in this area.
I do not think we could be any stricter. In spite of everything that is done in this area, I should point out that the unexpected can always happen. However, Mr President, let us not be hypocritical: this happens in our own countries also, and within the European Union. Are we in a position to preach to the rest of the world? Are we in a position to say that non-compliant ...
(The President interrupted the speaker)
payments can never happen in our countries?
Mr President, I felt it was important to clarify these points.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Goerens for this very valuable contribution to the important debate on budget support. We welcome it because it invites the Commission to continue our efforts to improve the design and the approach of budget support.
Mr Goerens, the proposals that you raise come at a time when we are busy preparing the new communication on EU budget support. It is scheduled for adoption by mid-October. In this regard it is becoming apparent that your report - Parliament's report - and the emerging ideas of the new communication are moving in similar directions.
As part of the new budget support policy, the Commission will develop a closer link between general budget support and the fundamental values of the European Union. This is particularly important when it comes to political governance. Issues like human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the eligibility criteria covering macroeconomic public financial management and the national or sector strategy in the partner country will be assessed in a much more structured and rigorous way, as you also pointed out in your speech just now and in your report.
Ms Jäätteenmäki, the Commission will strengthen accountability and transparency in order to make development processes much more inclusive. The role of parliaments, civil society organisations and audit institutions in partner countries will be further strengthened as part of a budget support operation. The external oversight of national budgets is crucial for domestic accountability and international acceptance. In addition the Commission will strengthen its risk assessment and management framework with regard to budget support in line with the recommendations of the recent Court of Auditors report.
Finally, we would also like to make a reference to the Court of Auditors report on budget support operations from 2010. The Court there acknowledged that the Commission has made considerable progress but noted that there are still weaknesses in the methodology and the management that can prevent budget support from reaching its full potential. With this statement and backed by Council conclusions, I would like to contest the statement in paragraph 1 of the report that there have been numerous types of undesirable development and wastage of money. However, it is precisely because there are still improvements to be made that the Commission will come with a communication in mid-October. Mr Goerens, your report will be very helpful in that regard.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 5 July 2011.


Closure of the sitting