Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 23.05)


Time to move up a gear  Creating a Europe of entrepreneurship and growth
The next item is the report by Mrs del Castillo Vera, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on Time to move up a gear - Creating a Europe of entrepreneurship and growth.
rapporteur. - (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are currently debating a report that is going to be voted on this morning and which deals jointly with a number of reports presented by the Commission with one fundamental and very well defined objective, which is no less than to establish a range of measures enabling us to develop a knowledge-based society and economy in Europe, which is ultimately the fundamental instrument for generating employment and growth and therefore prosperity for all Europeans.
In this report, like other reports by experts, such as the Aho report, which is an extremely complete and precise report dealing with the same issues, or other previous Commission reports, we are being presented with a situation in which we have a very good diagnosis - I would say - of where we are, why we are in this situation and what we need. There is probably no other area in which we have such precise knowledge as in this one, allowing us to promote growth in Europe.
We have a diagnosis and we also have the solutions. We all know that in order to promote a knowledge-based society we need to promote innovation. We all know that we need to promote training so that people can adapt to all the changing situations in employment and can recycle themselves and find new kinds of work. We all know that innovation is necessary so that the social welfare system does not lose its capacity to meet the citizens' needs in terms of health, training, etc. We all know, too, that companies need a favourable framework, a framework that helps them, that encourages them to develop innovation and that prevents them from having to deal with bureaucratic problems, with difficulties in a whole range of fields of action.
This is not the time to list each of the aspects of the report, because they are there and you all know about them. I would like to take this opportunity to place as much emphasis as I can on the need to stop all the talk once and for all and to stop giving reports and analyses wonderful titles, while there is still a degree of paralysis in the national States' actions. The step that has been taken in relation to the 25 national reform programmes is important, but I believe that we should place extremely great emphasis on a very thorough assessment of the progress made with those national programmes.
As time passes, we are being left further and further behind. When the Lisbon Agenda was drawn up, there were expectations in terms of how things would develop. At the half-way point in the implementation of the Lisbon Agenda, the European average - the situations vary from country to country, of course - was worse than when the Lisbon Agenda was drawn up. We may find that in 2010 we have still failed to make any progress and that we have therefore got further and further behind. I truly believe that if we were to hire an external auditor, they would be amazed to see what a good diagnosis we have, and what good remedies and solutions we have, but that, in spite of that, there has been such a complete lack of action in their application.
Like life itself, societies are created by means of cooperation amongst different generations. One generation carries the baton; it is like a relay race, but it is our foundations that are being passed on. Many Europeans are currently growing up and being born. Others, like ourselves, will be retired before too long. All of us need a society in which Europe can continue to have that capacity to compete, to have the leadership and sense of future that it has had in the past, because Europeans used to be determined, with their hearts and souls, to leave a better legacy for the future of their countries and, in our case, for the future of all of the countries making up European society.
That is our responsibility, therefore, and we must put our hearts and souls into it.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission welcomes the opportunity to participate in this debate on growth and employment policy and we are quite clear in welcoming the present report. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs del Castillo Vera, most warmly for her thorough and objective consideration of the issues involved.
We are having this debate a few days before the Commission's decision on the progress report on growth and employment policy in 2006. I share Mrs del Castillo Vera's analysis that we, in Europe, do in fact know perfectly well where our problems are. We also know exactly what needs to be done. We have the right answers to the problems but - and this is where Mrs del Castillo Vera got it quite right - there is a problem with the implementation of the measures deemed correct, in particular at the national level. It is also easy to explain why.
The long-term needs for reform that we have identified for European growth and employment policy always come up against the short-term interests of national politics. There are always elections somewhere. The machinery always grinds to a halt somewhere. Even so, I am in a position to tell you today that the progress report that we will be adopting in a fortnight will be sending out two uncommonly positive signals.
The first signal is that, for the first time, we actually have a functioning mechanism in Europe to coordinate the economic policies of the Member States and the EU itself. That, of course, was the big problem with the Lisbon Strategy, as you identified, in that while its aims were very ambitious, its implementation mechanism was practically non-existent.
The second positive answer is that the priorities of the Member States have changed to a noticeable degree. We will be able to show in our reports, which cover every single country and every single sector of the economy, that the issues in our strategy are now on the agenda all over Europe. These issues are education and training, research and development, innovation, better conditions for businesses, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, and improving the employability of those social groups denied access to the labour market. These issues are all the hottest topics on the political agenda in every Member State, and so I am very pleased that the report under discussion today has very clear things to say on precisely these subjects. I would like to emphasise in the clearest possible way how much I welcome the fact that this report so clearly endorses Commission policy in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises and to innovation.
I would like to state very clearly that the future of our growth and our jobs depends on our success in bolstering the innovation potential in small and medium-sized enterprises such that they are able to contribute more and more to growth and employment in Europe. It is from this sector that the extra jobs that we need will come, and so it is important that all of our policies are assessed in respect of whether or not they allow Europe's small and medium-sized enterprises the leeway they need.
We will very soon be in a position to debate the state of growth and employment policy on the basis of the Commission's progress report. I am fairly sure, Mrs del Castillo Vera, that, when that happens, you will share my opinion that Europe is not in a state of stagnation. We are, rather, clearly moving in the right direction.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union definitely needs renewed impetus in order to bridge that gap, that divide that exists in relation to the world's other strong, dynamic, competitive economies: I am not just referring to the traditional ones, but to the new ones, too, which have made an appearance on the international stage. Europe is therefore risking a great deal if it is unable to keep pace and to modernise by giving itself that impetus and that extra something that is being requested of it, not least through this debate. It is in danger of losing that compatibility that it has always been able to demonstrate between economic, productive and industrial growth and, at the same time, social cohesion and the ability to promote employment and a more inclusive kind of growth.
I believe that this 'extra something' requires two elements. Firstly, we need to take action regarding new factors of economic and employment growth: human capital, the training of human capital, the enhancement of people's abilities and skills, and technological innovation, which is also understood to mean the ability to transfer the results of research and of what knowledge today places at our disposal into production processes. There is a second element, however, which I should like to mention in closing, and which is key to overcoming this challenge: Europe needs to work together more! Europe needs to provide itself with this strategic ability that is a common outlook. Twenty-five national plans are weakening our ability to grow together: we need one outlook, a more univocal outlook. We need, in short, more harmonised policies in the fields of taxation, of employment and of industrial policies.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. - Madam President, in olden times young people learned their professions in the workshops of older masters. In Hungary, before the World Wars and the Iron Curtain, many young people went to western Europe for some years to extend their vocational training by working in the workshops of foreign masters. In this way, they learned both their profession and one or two foreign languages.
We should not invent new things, we should just remember the old traditions. Of course, times have changed and the state has an important role in vocational training. However, as with the individual masters or guilds in the old times, small and medium-sized companies should be involved in providing practical experience for students. Our projects in the field of vocational training are rather modest. We must provide more financial resources for programmes that provide foreign experience and possibly the exchange of students.
Vocational training should also provide language courses, including business technology phrases. It is nice to learn the Hamlet monologues by heart, but carpenters or computer operators should know their professional terms in foreign languages as well.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (PL) Madam President, I would like to warmly congratulate the rapporteur, and thank her for all the work undertaken on an issue of such great importance for the future of the European economy. We are unfortunately bound to recognise that the European Community's economic results are consistently disappointing, particularly when we take into account the opportunities offered by the single European market. Particular attention should be paid to the difficulties experienced by small and medium-sized enterprises. After all, SMEs are among the powerhouses of the European economy.
Better regulation and simplification are crucial to increasing the cohesion and clarity of Community legislation and would help to reduce the administrative burden weighing so heavily on SMEs. Future legislative proposals should adopt a broad and comprehensive approach based on detailed consideration of current legislation and an in-depth assessment of the implications. There should be regular contact with SMEs and the organisations representing them so that they can be involved in the implementation and further development of Community programmes.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Madam President, first of all, allow me to thank our rapporteur, Mrs del Castillo Vera, and to congratulate her on her excellent report, especially since it is structured around clear sets of themes designed to improve monitoring of the Lisbon Strategy. I think, moreover, that one issue in particular ought to get us moving: that of reviewing the Community Patent.
For too long, we have been saying, as Mrs del Castillo Vera said just now, that it is crucial for innovation to be promoted via harmonisation at European level. Now, what we are saying needs to be heard. We talk about producing better legislation, and the scope of such legislation is vast. There is also, however, cause to be surprised that Europe is so far behind in terms of innovation. Bearing in mind, however, that a patent costs on average EUR 46 700 in Europe compared with EUR 10 250 in the United States, I think that we know, unfortunately, why this is so. Charging as much as that is the best way of stifling innovation in Europe's small and medium-sized enterprises. This cost is utterly prohibitive. It is therefore a matter of urgency to get the Council to think again and help extricate our companies from this unfortunate situation.
I should now also like to emphasise another important point that we ought to have taken up in this report, namely the Agreement on Public Procurement. In the process of being reorganised under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation, this Agreement offers the 36 signatories, including our 25 Member States, access to their partners' public procurement markets. Nonetheless, a number of these partners are not playing by the rules. One has only to look at what the United States and Canada do. By means of national provisions, they exclude from the scope of the Agreement those public procurement markets that they reserve for their SMEs, even though these countries can put themselves forward in the public procurement markets of the 25 Member States.
I find it unacceptable that the progress made in transatlantic relations is all in the same direction. We therefore have a duty to promote a European Small Business Act on the model of that in place in the United States since 1953. We might be said to be 50 years behind. You will agree that enough is enough. It remains for us to come up with better legislation.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we keep on reminding ourselves, small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of Europe's economy, employing most of Europe's workers, yet still not without their problems.
I want to point out that the first communication from the Commission in which many problems were addressed reached us in July 1994, followed by recommendations in December of the same year, a second communication in 1998, and then, in 2000, experts found out that not even half of the measures were being put into effect in the Member States. It is necessary to note that, even today, only 55% of them have been, so the Member States have to back up their words with actions.
I would like to say something about the transfer of undertakings, which is an important matter to which too little attention is given when considering the problem as a whole, not only on the part of the authorities responsible for Member States' tax laws but also by the enterprises themselves, which have to start work in good time on the business of transferring their enterprise to a new owner.
There is work to be done by all parties involved. Not least in the Seventh Research Programme, this House has taken action in the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises; enough words have been bandied back and forth, so now is the time for some action.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (LT) Firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the preparation of her speech. Essentially I agree with her. This is yet one more document among a multitude of others that should encourage entrepreneurship in Europe - starting with the expansion of small and medium-size enterprises. Indeed the Community's policy on this question is consistent and, I would say, fair. The problem is that in real life it is often not observed. Laws are frequently ignored and bureaucratic obstacles are created. I would like to point out two problems: I think the success of small and medium-size enterprises depends on their solution. Firstly, there is a problem with business registration procedures. The Commission has promised that by the end of 2007 the so-called One-Window Principle would be implemented in the entire Community. At the Summit Meeting in March, the Member States also agreed to simplify registration procedures for new enterprises. It was agreed that they should not take longer than one week. However, in reality business registration in some Community countries now takes from one day to several weeks. Registration costs also differ markedly. In certain countries it does not cost anything, yet elsewhere the cost can amount to hundreds of euros.
The second problem - control over the activities of enterprises, overseen by various State institutions. In Lithuania at the present time, 152 controlling bodies are in operation. Business people mention this as one of the biggest problems and sources of corruption. Recently 300 Commission employees made a commitment that by 2009 they would work for at least one week in small and medium-size enterprises. That way they will attempt to understand the problems. This is a welcome and concrete step. Perhaps similar initiatives should be extended to other parts of Europe, but would the Community endorse them? I am certain that we will have to eliminate bureaucratic obstacles to business expansion. Then we will be able to say that we are creating Europe through business and that we are encouraging its growth.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (LV) Thank you. I have no doubt that achievements in innovation, the skill to make use of them and the capacity to revive the entrepreneurial environment, particularly in the small and medium-sized enterprises sector, will establish Europe's place in global economic competition. Europe must adopt a proactive and leading position on global economic and social regulation. Thus, for example, if we wish to catch up with the USA in the sphere of innovation where, according to an assessment by the European Commission, we are currently lagging behind by 50 years, it is vital to change existing relations between science and business, and between business and the regulatory role of the state, as well as the models for funding science. Restrictions, not lack of enterprise, are the reason why the majority of Europe's residents want to be employees and not employers. We welcome the report's emphasis on the role of the common market in fostering entrepreneurial activity. The spheres in which the common market is not functioning properly are services and the free movement of labour. A task that is behind schedule in the promotion of the free movement of labour is achieving comparability between Member States' degrees and qualifications, which has become particularly topical following the 2004 enlargement and the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. I hope that the report will stimulate MEPs to rethink and understand the errors that have crept in, not least in the recently adopted services directive, and in rejecting the introduction of the European patent. Thank you.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, just for a moment I should like to test our wonderful interpreters. 'European Union entrepreneurship' is an oxymoron, is it not? The whole raison d'être - if I may lapse into the vernacular of this place - is to stifle small business. Rule upon rule, regulation upon regulation are generally made by people with no commercial experience at all. I went through the list of over 700 MEPs just yesterday, and I could not find more than about 5 people who had bona fide business experience.
The Commissioners go on the Microsoft yacht for their holidays, the British Prime Minister has close relations with Lord Browne of BP, and so on and so forth, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with business.
Business in Western Europe is millions upon millions of small businessmen and women living a life of quiet desperation, trying to put their livelihoods together. Small businesses account for over 52% of the UK's GDP.
You tell us in this place what age we may recruit at; you tell us what colour they may be; you tell us how much leave they must have; you tell us how much their pensions will be. It goes on and on. If we really wanted to get this place sorted out and we really wanted entrepreneurship, I would suggest that we only have Commissioners and MEPs who have actually done an honest day's work in their lives. There are none!
(Applause from the public gallery)
While I can indeed understand that some of the speeches made in this House meet with the approval or disapproval of visitors, I really must ask those in the galleries to refrain from expressing their views.
Madam President, I wonder how many people in this Chamber have had an idea for a new business, raised the money themselves at their own risk and successfully run that business for 20 more years and generated jobs and wealth. I see that not a hand goes up, and yet here we have a Commission talking about authorising entrepreneurs and about level playing fields - which is the most fundamental contradiction of the word 'entrepreneur' you could possibly imagine. The whole point about entrepreneurship is creating something that nobody has ever thought of before.
There sits the Commissioner talking about criminalising the use of imperial measurements on exports from the UK after 2009. As a consequence of that, the manufacturers of tyres, bicycles, clothing, medical equipment, dairy products, frozen foods, specialist papers, domestic appliances, hand tools, computer components and oil and gas components will all suffer, every single one of them. One of them in my constituency will be faced with going out of business because there is no way he will be able to sell his components to the oil and gas industry in the United States. They are not going to pull their drill up thousands of feet just to check a measurement - no way! He will either become a criminal to stay in business or he will go out of business.
Years ago I walked into the office of one of the biggest industrialists in the United States and behind him was a notice that said: 'If you are not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, so get out of the way!' That is a message I commend to this House.
(PL) Madam President, there are many reasons why the European Union loses out when competing with other countries. It does badly against both highly industrialised and developing countries. I cannot run through all the factors involved, but the main ones are inadequate support for SMEs and inadequate investment in science and education.
I would, however, like to focus on a different aspect today, namely the very marked differences in development within the European Union, at both national and regional level. If we are to create a genuine European scientific and technological area, we will first have to bridge the gap between the richer and poorer Member States. This obviously calls for additional resources, by which I mean not just the structural funds or funds allocated to agriculture, but also to resources for research and development, science and education.
Unfortunately, the richer countries have managed to secure almost all the funding set aside for such purposes, arguing that they are more effective in these areas. It should therefore come as no surprise that the differences between the rich and poor parts of the Union are becoming more rather than less marked, and that the European Union is developing at a significantly lower rate than the United States or the Asian countries.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there are two more things I should like to say.
The first is that, however much one might wish to go along with the criticism of the conditions - and the Commission, as you know, does not hold back when criticism is merited - there is one thing that should not be overlooked, and that is that Europe's economic statistics show an upward trend. Growth this year has surpassed expectations by far; a fall in unemployment is making itself very definitely felt; European firms are producing more, and we are becoming very much aware that the Member States' priorities are changing as they become keener to improve the conditions for entrepreneurship.
Secondly, when compared with - for example - the United States, it is indeed the case that there are fewer people in Europe who are prepared to set up a business themselves or to run one, or - to put it in the way a Member did a moment ago - to take upon themselves the risk of using their own money to create jobs for others. The causes underlying this are very interesting, and are to be found in our culture. It is for that reason too that the Commission has been such an energetic advocate of coupling together entrepreneurship and education; as early as at school and university, it must be possible to guide young people towards entrepreneurial activity. Remarkable successes are making themselves visible in the countries in which this is being done, while, in those where it is not, there are quite simply too few enterprises, and the plain and simple fact is that no jobs will be created in the absence of a business to create them.
What we are currently learning - and it is a matter of considerable interest - is that 'learning by doing' is still the best way to go about it. Reference has already been made in this debate to the 'Enterprise Experience' project, which I started with the aim of getting all the senior civil servants from my own offices to work in a small or medium-sized enterprise for at least a week. The first fifty to do so have now got back, and the results are fascinating. Every one of them - and yes, I really do mean every one of them - has come back with important proposals for improvements, for ways in which we can make life easier for small and medium-sized businesses, and these deserve to be the subject of serious discussion. On the other hand, though, the firms that took our official on and enabled these to work for them say that they learned a great deal from it and now have a far better idea of what is feasible at the European level and of what is not.
I really do want to encourage the Member States to take similar initiatives. Businesses change so quickly that it is absolutely necessary that those who create the conditions under which they operate should have a real knowledge, derived from their own observations, of what actually goes on in them and of what effect what they do has on them.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 11.00 a.m.
Written statement (Rule 142)
(FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by Mrs del Castillo Vera on the subject of entrepreneurship and growth. This report is an essential contribution to achieving the objectives laid down in the relaunched Lisbon Strategy, designed to make Europe the most competitive region in the world by refocusing on growth and employment while maintaining the balance between the three pillars of the process: the economy, the social dimension and the environment.
If the EU wants successfully to meet this enormous challenge to bring about growth and employment, it needs to take account of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which, let us not forget, account for 70% of the total number of jobs in Europe, with 75 million workers. Having constructed the internal market by taking an interest in consumers at the same time as relying on competition, the EU must from now on take an interest in producers and, while protecting us from the harmful aspects of globalisation, ensure that European creativity is given full rein. Finally, I deplore the fact that the disastrous monetary policy of the European Central Bank (ECB) has not been criticised, as monetary policy is not being put sufficiently at the service of economic growth.
(The sitting was suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed for voting time at 11.00 a.m.)


4. Animal health conditions governing the movement and importation from third countries of equidae (


Approval by the European Parliament of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (debate)
The next item is the report by Jo Leinen, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the approval by the European Parliament of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union (2007/2218(ΑCI)).
President-in-Office of the Council. - (PT) Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the solemn proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on 12 December in Strasbourg by the Presidents of the Council, Portuguese Prime Minister José Sócrates, the European Parliament and the European Commission will undoubtedly be one of the most significant moments in the recent history of the Union and the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union.
We will be taking a step forward that will have important and concrete implications for the consolidation of the universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity. Thanks to the new Lisbon Treaty, the Charter will have the same value as the Treaties; in other words it will be legally binding. This fact, given its importance, must be duly underlined and is something of which this Parliament, the national governments and the Commission should all be proud. It marks the end of a long road.
The impact of the decision to give the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal value goes beyond the usual political and diplomatic circles as it directly affects the legal affairs of our citizens. It is a concrete result of Europe. Clearly, the institutional reforms of the Lisbon Treaty are important and it is also true that the changes made to EU policies, to the common foreign and security policy, to the justice and home affairs policy and in other areas are vital so that the Union can tackle the future and meet the challenges facing us. However, the existence of a catalogue of rights, which is binding on the European institutions and on the Member States when they apply European law, has a meaning far beyond all this. From now on we are putting our citizens at the centre of the European project.
As we are talking about fundamental rights, I also want, on behalf of the Presidency and also on behalf of my own country, to express my delight at the Protocol of the Lisbon Treaty which provides for the accession of the Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. That is because this Protocol represents the achievement of a long-held ambition.
With regard to all of this, I must congratulate this Parliament and Mr Leinen on the adoption of this draft report on 12 November by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. This has once again shown the commitment of this House to the Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It only remains for me to express my sincere desire that the House will also find itself able to vote in favour of this report, thus allowing the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be solemnly proclaimed by the three institutions on 12 December.
(Applause)
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be a key instrument in our Union based on the rule of law. It contains a real catalogue of rights that all citizens of the Union should enjoy, from the individual rights related to dignity, freedoms, equality and solidarity to the rights linked to citizenship status and justice. The Charter will not alter the Union's competences, but it will offer strengthened rights and greater freedom for citizens.
The institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union will be bound by the rights written into the Charter, and the same obligations will be incumbent upon the Member States when they implement the Union's legislation. Citizens will be able to claim before the courts the rights enshrined in the Charter, and the legal scrutiny of the Court of Justice will ensure that the Charter is applied correctly.
The Commission welcomes the fact that the legally binding force of the Charter has been preserved through the negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference. Like Parliament, we would have preferred to see the Charter apply to all 27 Member States, with no exceptions to its full justiciability, but we should not underestimate the results achieved. Legal force is a major step forward in building a legitimate and accountable Union, where citizens' interests are the focus of attention. This was not obvious at the outset and it has been a long road to achieving this goal fully.
The Charter proclaimed in 2000 was not legally binding. During the European Convention in 2002-2003 and in the IGC that followed in 2003-2004, the Charter was adapted in order to make it legally binding, but that process was stopped due to the failure to ratify the Constitutional Treaty.
At the European Council in June 2007, it was agreed that the future new Treaty would contain a cross-reference to the Charter, as adapted and finally approved in 2004, and that it would have the same legal value as the Treaties, and this is now reflected in the new Treaty.
The rapporteur is proposing that Parliament should approve the Charter, which is a necessary step before its solemn proclamation, and, of course, the Commission fully supports this recommendation. The Commission will also approve the Charter next week and authorise the President to proclaim it on 12 December, together with the Presidents of Parliament and the Council.
The proclamation of the revised Charter will provide the basis for a cross-reference in the new Treaty that will be signed the following day in Lisbon, extending the legal value and justiciability to the rights enshrined in it.
With the new Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Union will undeniably enhance its protection of human rights. The European Union is not only a marketplace but also a common space based on values and common rights.
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is a core element of the Lisbon Treaty; indeed, we could even call it the soul of the new Reform Treaty. I am pleased that all three institutions agree that the Lisbon Treaty is not just about institutions or about policies; it is about people, namely the 500 million people in the European Union. This Charter is a visible expression of the fact that the European Union is concerned about protecting our citizens in respect of all acts emanating from the European Union.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is thus a milestone. We are moving from a Europe of the states to a Europe of the citizens, and we in the European Parliament have always welcomed this development. With this Charter and the 50 rights and freedoms contained within it, the European Union will have the most modern and comprehensive catalogue of fundamental rights in the world. Nothing of the sort exists anywhere else in the world, so we should be proud of this achievement. Starting with Article 1, which talks about protecting human dignity, all the way through the Charter to the final Article, which deals with the right not to be punished twice for the same criminal offence, the Charter provides enhanced protection of rights and also mentions rights which are not necessarily found in all the constitutions of the 27 Member States. I would simply draw your attention to the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings through modern genetic technology, the right to protection of personal data, the right to freedom of information and the right of access to documents, but also the right to good administration, 'good governance', which is what we preach to the rest of the world, but which must naturally apply to ourselves as well.
For the first time, a catalogue of fundamental rights puts economic and social rights on an equal footing with political rights and civil liberties. In an age of globalisation, I am confident that this provides people with adequate protection. As Parliament has repeatedly pointed out, it is regrettable that the new Treaty does not reproduce the text of the Charter in full, so it will not be as visible as it might have been. However, I think we should note, with satisfaction, Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty which states: 'The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.' That removes any doubts for citizens of the European Union by confirming that, with this Treaty, they do have the opportunity to assert their rights before the national courts and, ultimately, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
We still have to adopt this Charter again in plenary because it has been amended, and it could be said that it is not as good as the Charter from 2000, unfortunately. I am referring especially to the watering down of Article 52, and there may be problems interpreting the very vague clauses you will find in that Article. Nonetheless, the Charter has been rescued and is going to be part of the Treaties. I believe that the Charter is a symbol. As has been said in this House, the EU is not just a large market with an associated currency union; the EU is a community of values, and its task is to defend these values in its internal policies and in Europe's external policies as well.
It is all the more regrettable that there is an opt-out for two Member States, namely the United Kingdom and Poland. We find this regrettable and I would like to appeal to the governments and parliaments of those two countries to spare no effort to revoke this opt-out as quickly as possible so that all 27 Member States are operating on the same basis when it comes to defending the fundamental rights and values of the European Union. I therefore support the adoption of the Greens' amendment here, which will be voted on tomorrow as an addendum to our report from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. I would therefore ask you to vote in favour of this important report.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Madam President, this morning my Group celebrated and commemorated the approval of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Today the members of my Group are wearing a badge which says 'Yes to the Europe of values'.
In this respect I agree with what previous speakers have said, particularly Madam Wallström, about the European Union not being just a market. The European Union is a political project, but one based on principles and values which unite all European people.
As a result, Madam President, today is a good day, with a resolution that will allow us to celebrate and solemnly proclaim this Charter of Fundamental Rights during the next Strasbourg part-session.
In fact, I will not be revealing any secrets by saying that those of us who had the good fortune to participate in the drafting of this Charter in the first Convention were left with a bitter aftertaste. This was for two reasons, the first being that, although we drafted the Charter as if it were to be legally binding, in the end this was not possible in Nice because six governments rejected this.
However, time has proven us right and now the Charter, thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, will be legally binding. That bitter aftertaste has now been converted into satisfaction.
The second reason, Madam President, is that I remember how in Nice there was no solemn proclamation of the Charter. A great opportunity was lost to explain to the European people that the rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Charter are our identifying marks, for it was signed in secret.
However, thanks to the determination of the President of the European Parliament and our three representatives in this Intergovernmental Conference, on 12 December during the Strasbourg part-session we will achieve what they failed to achieve in Nice. We will solemnly proclaim this Charter and will reaffirm, as the members of the PPE-DE Group have done, our commitment to these rights and freedoms set out in this Charter.
We will vote, Madam President, in favour of Mr Leinen's report.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, the PSE Group supports the readoption of the Charter in its new form so that it can, through the Reform Treaty, be made binding on the European institutions. In so doing, we will be plugging a major gap. The European institutions as such are not bound as yet in a watertight way to respect the same rights that all our Member States respect by virtue of their own constitutions or by virtue of their membership of the European Convention on Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. This Charter will be binding on the European institutions, and the whole field of Community law must respect those rights, failing which European legislation can be struck down in the courts.
It is surprising that some Euro-sceptics who, one would think, would be pleased that the European institutions are obliged - are constrained - to act in this way, are opposing this Charter - yet some of them are! It is perhaps unfortunate that, as a result of that, some Member States have felt it necessary to clarify, in a protocol, how the Charter interacts with their domestic law.
That has, in turn, given rise to confusion. A colleague just now referred to that as an 'opt-out'; it is, of course, not an opt-out. The Charter remains binding on the European institutions and on the full field of Community law, irrespective of how it affects domestic law in certain countries.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the solemn proclamation of the Charter is the climax of our work, stretching back to 1999, aimed at creating a superior form of rights regime for the Union.
Since the principal purpose of the Charter is to protect citizens from abuse of the large powers now vested in the Union, it is bizarre and regrettable that a Member State should seek to escape its binding effect. It is my belief that the British protocol will be found to be juridically flawed, as well as a serious political mistake.
The courts are bound to develop jurisprudence for the entire Union system that is blind to nationality and faithful to the key principle of Union law, which is that we draw our fundamental rights from the traditions that are common to all our Member States, as opposed to being exclusive to one. In my view, and that of my Group, the British opt-out is shameful and should fade to oblivion as quickly as possible.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, in 2000 the Charter of Fundamental Rights was drawn up as a declaration of the values that were to guide the Union's policy. The Union itself was to become a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. At that juncture, the European Court of Justice was to cease ruling on the basis of general legal principles derived from the constitutions of Member States.
It is now 2007 and the Union is to accede to the European Convention, but not, however, so that it becomes the only European system for protecting human rights. We are creating an alternative system based on a legally binding charter of rights. In many respects this is a first. General legal principles will remain the third set of grounds for rulings in matters concerning fundamental rights.
All this is complicating the system for protecting fundamental rights in Europe, and making it even less comprehensible to the citizens. Many Europeans are concerned about the situation. Essentially, these are the reasons why two Member States opted for protocols protecting against the unexpected consequences of the effects of the Charter.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, today, I am proud to be a Member of this House which from the very first day has been a stalwart champion of fundamental and civil rights in general and this Charter of Fundamental Rights in particular. It is now nine years since the Cologne Summit took the initiative to start working towards a legally binding Charter, and this process is not yet complete.
As somebody who has been privileged to follow this constitutional process all the way through, I would like to share two experiences with you. One is very ironic: it is odd that, over these nine years, nothing has proved to be so laborious and controversial, or as difficult to achieve, as those documents which embody the principles which form the very basis of the European Union and which we should be able to take for granted: democracy, parliamentary rights, social rights, the market economy, transparency of legislation and fundamental freedoms and rights. It is a very odd situation and must surely have to do with the root causes of the crisis of confidence besetting the European Union.
The second experience which I would like to share with you is this: it is important not to become exhausted or disenchanted, and it is important not to lose heart. I have long believed that Sisyphus is the patron saint of Europe, and this whole experience bears this out. That is why I think that, today of all days, we should try again and appeal to the United Kingdom and Poland, in the name of the indivisibility of fundamental rights, in the name of the indivisibility of human rights and fundamental rights and liberties, to join in this great European consensus!
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (FR) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, during our next sitting we will again approve the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Before we do this, let me ask a question which is perhaps not as simple as it appears. Will this be the initial Charter proclaimed in the year 2000 or, as the Leinen report suggests, will it be the adapted rehash integrated within the former draft Constitutional Treaty? The two texts are not, of course, identical and I feel it is unfortunate that their differences are not clearly set out, although that would have raised some legitimate controversy.
For example, the French human rights commission expressed, and I quote, its grave concern about the amendments made to the articles on social rights - I am still quoting - that threaten to remove the social content of the Charter.
One of the main authors of the original Charter, the lawyer Guy Braibant, explained in the press - and I quote - that the conditions for applying the text have changed. First of all, the word 'may' is occasionally replaced by 'must'. Moreover - and I am still quoting - there is an official reference to 'explanations' by the Presidium. Although they ought to be pedagogical and completely neutral, the explanations interpret laws in a rather minimal sense. Fundamental rights have been undermined, unquote.
Which text will we be approving in the next sitting? I also have a subsidiary question: will this approval be valid in all EU countries? This kind of action cannot entertain any ambiguity. Thus I would appreciate a precise reply to these two questions.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (DA) Madam President, I have been involved in the preparation of the Charter, and in both conventions I have proposed a very simple solution: allow the EU to become a member of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this way, the institutions would be bound in the same way as the countries. We would close a gap. When we make the Charter legally binding, we are not closing any gaps. On the contrary, we are creating a number of gaps in the protection that we enjoy as citizens under our national constitutions and as part of our common European human rights. The Luxembourg Court's activist interpretation will always take precedence over both Strasbourg and our own Supreme Court. The Charter is unsuitable as an independent source of law. It is much too imprecise. Does the right to life begin at birth? If not, then how many months before? Does the right to take industrial action also apply to public sector employees? Freedom of speech for public servants is much better under the Strasbourg Court than under the Luxembourg Court. In addition, yesterday we saw a textbook example of possible conflicts. The German journalist Hans-Martin Tillack obtained the support of the Strasbourg Court, which stated that OLAF had acted unlawfully when it arrested him and confiscated 16 boxes of documents, computers and telephones. Luxembourg supported the theft of the journalist's sources. Strasbourg condemned the theft and arrest because it prioritised freedom of the press.
The Charter will be presented as a victory for human rights. Possibly. It is more reminiscent of a fake lottery ticket. In a sense we are taking a great risk with regard to hard-earned human rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The drawing of the lottery numbers is decided by judges in Luxembourg outside parliamentary control, and only when they are condemned will there be a unanimous amendment of the treaties to correct any backlash. It is very impractical, and it is more like an imprisonment of our rights than a charter.
Madam President, we all support human rights, and I am growing a little tired of some people - particularly those from states where, historically speaking, human rights are something of a novelty - attacking the UK as some sort of pariah because of its 'gesture' opt-out under Protocol 7.
Let me remind them that, as long ago as 1688, a bill of rights lay at the heart of the Glorious Revolution in the United Kingdom. Since then, the UK has been a beacon of liberty. So we need no finger-pointing lessons in human rights.
People might be irked that we have spoilt the party by withholding, for now, from some of the trappings of EU super-statehood, but I would point out that it is our national and political right to do so. Sadly, though, the opt-out will fade out as the European Court of Justice sets about its centralising agenda. Ultimately, though, those people will get their way - should the UK be so foolish as to ratify this Treaty despite the opposition of its people.
(DE) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President, it is also one of the fundamental rights of citizens not to be overlooked. This Charter of Fundamental Rights does indeed provide protection for citizens akin to that afforded by the classic constitutional state. However, the European Union is not a state. It is not a state, but it does have legislative competence, and it is only this legislative competence of the European Union's institutions which falls under the protection and control of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on a binding basis. Associated with this is the fact that European legislation and the actions of the European institutions are bound by values and value-based decisions, along with the first sentence of this Charter, which is also the most noble: human dignity is inviolable.
I derive this principle from a Christian image of humanity. However, it can be derived from other sources as well. Our binding commitment to this principle, and the binding commitment of our three institutions to adhere to this principle, represents a massive step forward. This applies to the European Union as a whole. Poland and the United Kingdom are rule-of-law states; there is no doubt about that. The fact is, however, that by not signing and by opting out of the Charter, they are not protecting themselves; they are shielding something that is already protected. The fact is that this Charter is not applicable to national legislation and national institutions at all. In other words, they are protecting something that can already be taken as a given. In Poland in particular - where a majority in Parliament and a majority of the people take a different view, but where the President is making use of his prerogatives - I hope that change will come about in time.
The legally binding nature of the Charter can be further reinforced if we pursue a harmonised strategy. Mr President-in-Office, I am grateful to you for the fact that we are utilising the opportunity afforded by single legal personality and are acceding to the Strasbourg Convention. If this is successful, the European area of justice will achieve coherence, bringing together the protection of fundamental rights at both national and European level. I hope the outcome will be a value-oriented Europe of citizens of which we can be proud!
(PL) Madam President, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is the early 21st century counterpart to the great statements on human rights and citizens' rights made in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Those were famous declarations on freedom and the rule of law that forged contemporary democracy. Our Charter has its roots in events that contributed to the development of democracy and the contemporary system of liberal democracy during the last 200 years.
I see no reason why certain European countries should not adopt this Charter. I put it to Mr Szymański, how can one seriously argue against the Charter in a country that was the birthplace of Solidarność, thanks to whose leadership the whole of Europe gained its current understanding of the right to freedom, the rule of law and democracy?
I appeal to the Polish Government in Warsaw, and in particular to Mr Tusk, the Prime Minister. Mr Tusk, your parliamentary group won the elections a month ago thanks to the votes of those Poles who wish the Charter to be included in the European Reform Treaty. I trust you will not disappoint the voters who supported you just over a month ago. I call on the Polish Government to include the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Reform Treaty, so that it will be binding in my homeland too. The Poland of Solidarność, European Poland, the Poland of tolerance and openness believes that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a key element of the Reform Treaty. We should not allow ourselves to be blackmailed by the conservative right wing, which would like us to agree not to implement this Charter in our homeland.
(PL) Mr President, I believe that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a sine qua non for any community wishing to operate pursuant to the value system derived from respecting human dignity. This gives rise to the principles of freedom, equality and solidarity. I see no reason why countries such as the United Kingdom or Poland that wish to be part of the Community should refuse to be involved in something that constitutes the foundation of our common action.
This Charter advocates reference to social values, to the European social model. It also states unambiguously that, where local customs and practices are concerned, internal national law applies. This means that there are no grounds for any type of opt-out to apply in this area. I trust that both Poland and the United Kingdom will choose to opt in instead.
(PL) Mr President, the debate on this report touches on many issues, and indirectly on the basis for creating a new legal framework. In August 2007 the President of this Parliament made a statement in that regard at a gathering of displaced persons. He stated that the source of the right to a homeland should be sought in the right to dignity, and that the right to a homeland is therefore a fundamental human right.
The right to dignity is enshrined in the first article of the Charter. The President's opinion was criticised in the Polish Parliament. The German association of displaced persons laments the fate of people resettled from Poland. What would happen if the German lament and specific interpretation of human dignity were applied to Alsace and Lorraine? Might a centre for the resettled be set up in this case too, or will there be reconciliation? Attempting to derive the right to a homeland from the right to dignity is a misinterpretation of the axiology of human rights, as stated by Mr Karski, a Member of the Polish Parliament. An interpretation clarifying primary legislation is acceptable, but not its extension.
The President of the European Parliament referred to Pope John Paul II. I should like to remind this House and its President that in 1965 Archbishop Karol Wojtyła published a written declaration according to which German bishops had stated clearly that Germans resettled from the East wished, and indeed had, to understand that a whole new generation of Poles was growing up there, and that these Poles considered the land assigned to their parents to be their own homeland. No legal or moral disquisition or sentimental spokespersons are called for on this subject.
I do believe that we can achieve unanimity on the Charter in this House, however, despite President Sarkozy's recent suggestion that unanimity contradicts democracy. Vain hopes, Mr Sarkozy, since you are unable to convince even the Paris metro workers.
(NL) Mr President, no one can dispute that the citizens of Europe must be armed with fundamental rights and freedoms, vis-à-vis their own countries as well as the European Union. A Europe without rights and freedoms would cease to be Europe. However, that is not the problem nowadays because the citizens are already sufficiently protected against their national governments both by their own national constitutions and by the European Convention on Human Rights. As regards the European institutions, European citizens can also assert their fundamental freedoms and rights in accordance with the fixed jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. The real point here is that, with the proclamation of this Charter, another step is taken towards a federal Europe. People want a European Bill of Rights just like in the federal United States. The difference between them, though, is that this Charter goes much further than an enumeration of the traditional rights and freedoms. Sometimes, however, it does seem like an enumeration of all kinds of socio-economic promises. The manifest does not tally in the slightest with the cargo.
(SV) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Mr President-in-Office, Members and - not least - citizens of Europe, today is a festive occasion, a great day, a day of joy, an immensely important day, much more important than many realise right now. It is important both to those who believe in fundamental rights as a principle and to those who believe in the development and integration of Europe.
It should have been completely self-evident a very long time ago that the EU's institutions had to be bound by the values we all endorse, but it was not so. In fact British people also believe in the principles of law, irrespective of how they come into being. Few parliamentarians would say that they are happy to assist in the suppression of human rights; indeed the great majority take entirely the opposite view. It has been a joy and an honour to be involved in the development of these values, which I am convinced mean so much to us.
Now we all know what this Union stands for, even if we could not manage to read the whole Treaty. They are fine values, they are good values, they are values we must all contribute to, and we must ensure that the Union helps to apply them correctly. Heartfelt thanks to Jo Leinen and to all who have assisted in the work, and - not least - heartfelt congratulations to the people of Europe!
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, on 12 December, the President of Parliament, together with the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, will solemnly proclaim the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. I am convinced that, in tomorrow's vote, the overwhelming majority of Members will voice their agreement with this historic document and this historic step.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights reflects the moral and spiritual heritage of the peoples of Europe in the European Union. It reflects values such as human dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity, the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the focus of attention on the individual because, among other things, the Charter establishes citizenship of the Union. I am glad that the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is taking place after the enlargement of the European Union to include the new Member States. This means that the Charter, in its own way, is a moral, legal and political reflection of the unity of the European Union: West and East, North and South. I also believe that both the governments and the parliaments of Poland and the UK will come to understand this fact, and that in the near future they will enable their citizens to join in this historic moment.
(SK) I welcome the approval of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it makes those rights that already exist for citizens of the European Union more visible. However, I would also like to call for clarification of possible conflicts of interest between the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a European Union document, and the European Convention on Human Rights, a Council of Europe document, which the European Union has also declared it will observe. From this it also follows that there may be a conflict of interests between the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Where will the Strasbourg Court stand in relation to the Luxembourg Court? As a supreme court, a constitutional court? Is this outcome actually acceptable for the European Court of Justice? Will the European Union, which possesses a legal personality, have a separate judge in the European Court of Human Rights? I want to stress the need to resolve this legal issue so that we can avoid a problem, because with the Charter of Fundamental Rights becoming legally binding, I expect an increase in legal disputes in the area of human rights.
(DE) Mr President, like almost all the previous speakers - only almost all, unfortunately - I am pleased that today, or tomorrow, we will give a mandate to the President of this House to sign the Charter.
Human rights are our European trade mark both within and outside Europe. Nonetheless, may I advise caution and that we do not get carried away by our emotions and bite off more than we can chew. With the Charter and the necessary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, we are establishing the important and classic basic rights and the important social rights on a legally binding basis, which means that they will be binding for the European institutions and the application of Community law. We are also making it possible to have recourse to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in respect of these basic rights, albeit under certain very narrowly defined conditions. However, this does not mean that every citizen will be able to petition the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg immediately, or indeed at all, as some people - swept away by their emotions - have occasionally claimed. That kind of claim does not serve our interests.
Let us stop making these assertions, which overshoot the mark, and let us feel a sense of gratification at the result that we have achieved. In the European Union, we have now set an important course - not only in relation to the classic rights but for our social policy too - of which we can in all conscience be proud. It includes the work/life balance, the prohibition of child labour, health protection for everyone and a high level of environmental and consumer protection. We should be pleased about that; it is the truth, and there is no need to embellish it.
(ES) Mr President, I believe we are discussing an extraordinarily important subject for the people. Clearly, trying to explain the reform of the European Union can be very complicated, but it is certainly easy to underline the importance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Will it be legally binding? This will not be explicitly stated in the Treaty, but it is our duty to make this known. I therefore feel that the decision we have taken to sign the Charter before the Lisbon Treaty is signed is very positive. From now on we must also say that no further exceptions will be allowed in the future as these are bad for the citizens of the countries concerned and for the citizens of the European Union as a whole.
I therefore believe it is vital that we make an effort, as proposed by Mr Leinen in his report, to clearly support the Charter of Fundamental Rights and its legally binding nature.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (HU) The citizens of European countries have fought both separately and together for each of the rights contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. For this very reason, it is a joyful thing that, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights being made legally binding, fundamental rights can finally be realised more effectively, not only at Member State level but also at the level of European legislation and application.
European citizens will enjoy its benefits if they can have recourse to legal remedy in the event of a breach of their fundamental rights at European level. Such guarantees will make the European Union and its institutions more democratic, and more directly accessible and more verifiable for half a billion European citizens.
Making the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding will close a chapter in the history of the fight for fundamental rights. At the same time, I think that, with regard to the future, the Charter of Fundamental Rights must become the ars poetica of Europe. Alongside the common economic interest, Europe must show the way in fundamental rights, and forge those living there as one, and not only through the classic rights of freedom, but also in guaranteeing social and cultural rights, equal treatment and the rights of minorities.
Horace said in his ars poetica, 'Examine well, ye writers, weigh with care, what suits your genius; what your strength can bear'. I hope that the institutions of the European Union will be strong and brave enough to be able to guarantee the same fundamental rights to all European citizens in every corner of Europe.
in writing. - (FI) On 19 October in Lisbon a Treaty was signed which was to make the European Union more viable and more democratic. It would also strengthen civil rights. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be made legally binding, and the EU should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights formed the second part of the unratified Constitution. In an intergovernmental conference Members of this Parliament passed an initiative whereby the Presidents of the European Parliament and the Commission and the President-in-Office of the Council would sign the Charter of Fundamental Rights in a ceremony in Parliament's plenary on 12 December and it would be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This accords excellently with the values that the Charter of Fundamental Rights represents. A ceremonial signing will also increase the document's visibility. It therefore goes without saying that we wish to give our President, Hans-Gert Pöttering, a mandate to sign.


3. Philippines
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolution concerning the Philippines.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the series of killings being carried out throughout the world for political, religious and other reasons is now sadly an everyday reality, but I am astounded by the cruelty with which 57 people were murdered whilst queuing at a political meeting to support a presidential candidate in the Philippines.
This was a cold-blooded massacre carried out by an armed group in the name of a revolution of which it is difficult to make any sense. Moreover, this mass killing is not an isolated incident in this country where, in some regions, such as in the Mindanao region, armed uprisings - including those motivated by religion - have been taking place for years.
Apart from duly expressing our condolences regarding these bloody events, I believe that we must offer our strong support to the Philippine Government so as to establish how Europe may be of use in resolving the serious armed conflicts and opposition which are bathing this unfortunate country in blood.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the massacre on 23 November of last year in the Province of Maguindanao in the Philippines was a black day for human rights and a barbaric act of terrorism. Fifty seven people were killed, women were raped, people were injured - they convey a bloody message. As a journalist, it struck me, in particular, that there were 30 journalists among those killed. According to the renowned International Crisis Group, in no other case on record have more journalists ever been murdered at one time. For this reason, it is appropriate for the European Parliament to make a clear statement, as we are doing today in this draft resolution.
However, as the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), we request that the present text be toned down in three places through a split vote, because we ought to support the Philippine Government in its fight against terrorism and violence and therefore dispense with overly accusatory remarks directed at the government. Therefore, on behalf of the PPE Group, I request a separate vote on recital F. This accuses the Philippines of showing all the signs of a non-functional legal system.
In paragraph 2, we would like to delete the insinuation about what are referred to as initial delays in the investigation.
Finally, in paragraph 6, it is claimed that some missing persons are locked away in Philippine prisons. This, too, is currently an unproven insinuation and should, in our opinion, be deleted.
author. - Mr President, this horrendous crime in Maguindanao is undoubtedly deserving of our strongest condemnation. It reveals the extent to which lawlessness has taken root in some parts of the Philippines.
There are many reasons for this depressing development: the dispersed nature of the islands of the Philippines archipelago, the weak central government, corruption, poverty and an ongoing Islamist terrorist insurgency supported by al-Qaeda in the south.
This crime, apparently politically motivated, therefore must be seen in its wider social and historical context. We should not disregard the efforts that the Philippine Government has made to develop a more democratic political culture in the past 25 years following the fall of the kleptocratic dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Nor should we underestimate the existentialist threat posed by the terrorists of Abu Sayyaf and how they are destabilising the whole of the society that makes up the Philippine state.
Constructive engagement and targeted assistance offer the best chance of helping the Philippines, a country which shares our common values in many ways, in order to enable them to embed the rule of law in central and in local government.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, last November, I had the opportunity to welcome Mrs Edita Burgos, the mother of Jonas Burgos, to the European Parliament. This young Filipino was abducted by armed men in a very busy shopping centre in Manila on 28 April 2007. Since that day, neither his family nor his loved ones have had any news of him. Jonas Burgos is one of hundreds of people who have disappeared or been killed in the Philippines. Murders are committed with total impunity, and the perpetrators are very rarely brought to justice.
Looking ahead to the May 2010 elections, we are fearful of an increase in crime and of abductions of all those who are opposed to the government in power. As such, we condemn the Maguindanao massacre of 23 December last, and we hope that light will be shed on the murder and torture suffered by the Ismael Mangudadatu convoy.
Mr President, little more than two decades ago, the Philippines excited a great sense of hope around the world when they set off a democratic wave in Asia. This led us to harbour hopes for human rights in that area, and an increase in employees' rights, students' rights, the rights of the people and electoral and democratic normality in those countries.
Now that the world's attention is directed elsewhere, we cannot leave the democratic situation in the Philippines to deteriorate. Over the last few years, there have been some very disturbing instances of corruption and, in particular, violence and harassment directed at the opposition during the elections.
The most disturbing event, and the subject of our resolution, was the Maguindanao massacre, the assassination of 46 people who had been following the electoral convoy of the opposition candidate Mr Mangudadatu. They were allegedly slaughtered by a group linked to the dominant clan in the province of Maguindanao, the Ampatuan clan.
Among other aspects, I would like to draw attention to the fact that 30 journalists were assassinated in this massacre. This makes it the greatest massacre of journalists in world history.
Apparently, the House itself is distracted from what we are discussing here, which is a shame, but we cannot allow the world's distraction to let the Philippines slip into a situation where it goes from being the best example of democracy to being known as the worst, a mere two and a half decades down the line.
This massacre needs to be investigated and there needs to be a demand for President Gloria Arroyo, who belongs to the Ampatuan clan, to conduct the investigations through to their conclusion, as a matter of urgency. It is also important for the Philippines to know that Europe is alert and carefully watching developments in the country.
Mr President, the reason for this urgency is the brutal murder of 57 people, who were accompanying a politician on her way to register as a candidate in the elections for the position of provincial governor. The perpetrators belong to a local militia and some local police officers were involved.
This brutal attack is an extreme example of the menacing rise in politically-motivated extrajudicial executions and the forced disappearance of people that has been going on for years without these serious crimes ever being investigated.
The government has not shown any discernible will to take decisive steps to counter this development. Out of hundreds of cases, only two were investigated and not one senior official has been prosecuted in relation to these. In 2008, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions wrote that 'These killings have eliminated civil society leaders, including human rights defenders, trade unionists and land reform advocates, intimidated a vast number of civil society actors, and narrowed the country's political discourse.'
This is the climate in which the Philippines is preparing for the elections in May. There is a danger of there being further political murders. It is therefore of the utmost urgency that the Philippine Government should take effective measures to put a stop to this.
I would like to propose an oral amendment. Paragraph 6 states: 'to release all disappeared persons who are still in captivity'. We would like to replace this with: 'to make every effort to ensure that all who have been abducted are safely returned to their families.'
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (LT) If a Central European citizen were asked what is happening in the Philippines, he probably would not be able to answer and would say that there is nothing about it on television, so things are probably calm there. However, political murders, clan warfare, people being buried alive, chainsaw massacres, a state of war - this is everyday life in the Philippines. Quite recently, 57 people were murdered, half of them journalists. That is the biggest ever death toll among journalists in the world. We call on the government, we demand that it immediately stop such occurrences, disband the private militias and finally put an end to impunity. This is particularly important during the upcoming elections.
(PL) Mr President, presidential and local government elections are planned in the Philippines for 10 May. Now is the time to do everything to ensure they are fair elections. First of all, it is necessary to establish who was responsible for the murder, in November, of 57 journalists, family members and co-workers of Ismael Mangudadatu, a candidate for governor in the province of Mindanao. So far, local law enforcement agencies have not shown any determination in finding the perpetrators of this massacre. So many mistakes have been made in the investigation that it almost authorises the use of force in politics. The Philippine Government must, at last, face up to the people from the criminal world who have used the opportunity of recent election campaigns to make so many politically-motivated kidnappings and have now murdered over 100 candidates.
In addition, the Philippines should take steps to make efficient use of means available under the EU-Philippine Justice Support Programme, which has been established to strengthen the judicial system and build civil society. The elections in May will, therefore, not only be a check of the efficiency of the Philippine authorities, but also of the effectiveness of our aid instruments.
(ES) Very briefly, I would simply like to say that we are in a new year, with a new Treaty, but with the same bad habits as before. We still miss the presence of the Council in this type of debate on urgent matters, and we also continue to miss this interinstitutional dialogue that should enable us to respond to this type of case.
In the specific case of the Philippines, I must point out once again that, although this situation does not have the impact of others, such as Haiti, the fact that in the last decade, almost 1 000 people have disappeared or died means that there is a structural problem that requires structural measures.
We cannot always be acting based on headlines. We need to act based on problems, and the fact that currently, the main people affected are human rights defenders and journalists means not only that we cannot pass over these situations in silence, but also that we need to act forcefully in response to them.
(PL) Mr President, defence of human rights is the trademark of the European Union. I greatly regret that this trademark is not important to the Spanish Presidency, and that there are no representatives of the Council here at the moment. This is a very disturbing and downright scandalous situation. We are talking about human rights, we want to defend them, but there is no one here from the Council, and no representatives of the country which is leading the European Union for the next six months. This is, truly, an absolutely unacceptable situation.
I will be very brief, because we want to vote. The Philippines is a country with a Christian tradition going back to a culture which is, in part, European. In that country, especially, human rights should be respected, because they are often not respected in that continent. We must talk openly about this and show solidarity with all those who suffer discrimination in the Philippines. It is the role of the European Parliament to speak on this matter.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am representing the High Commissioner and I am representing the Commission.
The massacre in Maguindanao on the island of Mindanao on 23 November last year in which 57 people were killed has highlighted long-standing human rights issues in the Philippines related to the disappearance or unexplained killing of citizens and the effective impunity for the perpetrators in the past.
On this occasion, the government has acted swiftly and has taken decisive action to prosecute the perpetrators. That is very welcome. It is important to break the culture of impunity about such killings and to put an end to them.
The government has taken some important steps in strengthening human rights. The current administration of President Arroyo has abolished the death penalty and with ASEAN, has advocated including human rights provisions in the recently adopted ASEAN Charter.
An objective still to be achieved is ending the 40-year-old conflict with Muslim rebels in Mindanao on the basis of a peace deal that is fair to all sides. There appears to be renewed progress, and hopes have risen for agreement later this year. It should be noted that the massacre in Maguindanao took place between political families - all Muslim by the way - and that, as such, it was not related to intercommunal conflicts.
The EU has a well-established dialogue with the government of the Philippines where both sides discuss a wide range of issues, including human rights. We are also negotiating a PCA with the Philippines which will include important human rights commitments. We actively support the government in its efforts to improve respect for human rights.
In agreement with the government, we have launched an 'EU-Philippines Justice Assistance Mission'. This is a very timely action aimed at capacity-building for the Philippines judicial authorities, including police and military personnel, to help them investigate cases of extrajudicial killings and to prosecute those guilty of murder. We shall also put in place a monitoring system to develop confidence. EPJUST has an initial duration of 18 months and is funded under the Instrument for Stability, but can be extended. Furthermore, we have ongoing projects at local level to promote respect for human rights. These include monitoring of the implementation of international commitments, actions to support the ratification of the Rome Statute of the ICC and voter education.
The EU is also helping in the Mindanao peace process for the moment, mainly through support for social services and confidence-building activities, but we stand ready to do more if the process advances.
The debate is closed. The vote will take place next.
I would like to remind Mrs Lochbihler to table her oral amendment at the correct time, during the vote.


2. European order for payment procedure (vote)
- Before the vote:
(IT) Mr President, I would like to refer to the Rules of Procedure and I thank you for having quickly granted my request to speak. The speed with which the Presidency has given me the floor gives me the assurance that my voice can reach even where the microphones do not.
According to the Rules of Procedure I must propose that, following the decision made and the subsequent vote, we proceed immediately to amend our Rules of Procedure in line with the practice that has been established in the Chamber today. From now on it will no longer be obligatory to have access to texts in all languages twenty-four hours beforehand, but it will be sufficient to receive texts at the time of the vote, and it will no longer be necessary to table oral amendments, since any one of us may amend texts put to the vote, even at the last minute.
Mr President, allow me to congratulate you, since this means that once again a blow has been struck to democracy.
(IT) Mr President, I just wanted to say that today has been a difficult day and that I believe that the decision to repeat the vote represents a dangerous and wholly unnecessary precedent.
rapporteur. - Mr President, the committee and the political groups requested that we vote on compromise amendment 4 first, as it is the amendment that was agreed with the Council and the Commission in the trialogue. It respects our rules in Parliament on the new comitology procedure. That would mean, therefore, that amendment 2 will fall, when you take compromise amendment 4 first.
In view of the statement given by Commissioner Frattini during the debate on Monday and his commitment to look at the effects of this regulation and the civil justice laws for parties domiciled in third countries, in particular the States of the European Economic Area, the groups have agreed not to insist on Amendment 1. Therefore we will be voting as groups against that amendment.
I hope that avoids any confusion during the vote.
President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, the Presidency also takes note of Parliament's interest in extending the scope of the European order for payment procedure to claimants and defendants resident in a European Economic Area member country. However, also taking into account the negotiations in the Council, it appears to be impossible to change the definition of cross-border cases in the text of the regulation at this stage.
The Presidency is available to look more closely into the effects of the regulation for parties domiciled in states of the European Economic Area.