Annual report on the European Ombudsman's activities in 2007 (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Zdravkova, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the annual report on the European Ombudsman's activities in 2007.
rapporteur (BG). - Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for that reminder. During my many years of working as a judge, I have always seen to order in the court. So, Madam President and Mr Diamandouros, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to be the rapporteur for the annual Ombudsman's report. The Ombudsman is a figure in the European institutional system whose purpose is to defend the rights of European citizens and to counter maladministration. For this reason I would like to congratulate the European Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, for his dedication and his professionalism, because what he does is very important for ordinary people. As Jean Monnet said, we are building Union among people, not cooperation between States.
Similarly, I have had the pleasure of working on a report that unites, rather than divides the political groups in the European Parliament. As it is clear that we have been elected to this House by the citizens of Europe to protect their interests, it is with this conviction that we also found compromises to accommodate some of the amendments tabled by the other political groups. These proposals and today's debate are proof that the European Parliament takes this important mechanism for protecting European citizens very seriously. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Secretariat and all those who contributed to making this report more complete.
It is my deep conviction that it is through the institution of the European Ombudsman that citizens will be better able to exercise their rights in cases of maladministration, because even if the rules are good, it is important that they are properly applied to provide maximum protection. I believe that, just as the Commission is called the protector of treaties, the European Ombudsman is the champion of the correct implementation of Community legislation, although it is not alone in this role. The European Parliament, as the only democratically elected institution, is also called upon to uphold citizens' rights, which makes it all the more important that Parliament and the Ombudsman work hand in hand.
The report is also important because analysing the situation as it is in the course of the year will above all help us to learn lessons and take the right decisions for the future. We should not forget that behind every complaint, behind each number in the statistics, is a human being who is expecting the right help and a solution to his or her problem. While I was working on the report, I realised that a key aspect is information. The report shows that many citizens do not yet know how to stand up for the rights given to them by the European Union when faced with maladministration. An example of this is the number of ineligible complaints - 84%. This clearly shows that the Ombudsman and the European institutions must continue in this direction together, and inform European citizens so that they can exercise their rights to the full. That is why the report also proposes a common website for lodging complaints to all the institutions, something along the lines of the interactive manual designed by the Ombudsman, where citizens who have entered the requisite data are directed to the relevant institution, to which they can then directly lodge their complaint. This will help to reduce the number of inadmissible complaints.
Apart from that, I also focussed on what guarantees there are that citizens and those permanently resident in the EU know and make use of their rights, and whether the assistance they are given is easily accessible, fair, impartial and effective. I would like to point out that there is nothing the Ombudsman can do in over 30% of cases. In my view, the Ombudsman should always explain why no action can be taken on a particular complaint, thereby making it more useful to citizens.
I would also like to point out that the Ombudsmen at national, regional and local level play a key role, and their activities should be developed.
In conclusion, I call upon you to vote for this report, because it supports constructive cooperation between the Ombudsman and the institutions and bodies of the European Union, and confirms the Ombudsman's role as an external control mechanism and a source of constant improvement for European administration.
Thank you.
Ombudsman. - Madam President, thank you for this opportunity to address Parliament on the annual report of the European Ombudsman for 2007. I also wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Zdravkova, and the Committee on Petitions for their excellent and constructive report.
My report records progress in handling complaints, promoting good administration and providing knowledge about the Ombudsman's role. The number of admissible complaints increased, in both absolute and relative terms, from 449 (12% of the total) in 2006 to 518 (16% of the total) in 2007. We therefore met both of the objectives which Parliament has consistently emphasised: increasing the number of admissible complaints and reducing the number of inadmissible complaints.
The main types of maladministration alleged in admissible complaints were: lack of transparency, including refusal of information; unfairness or abuse of power; unsatisfactory procedures; avoidable delay; discrimination; negligence; legal error; and failure to ensure fulfilment of obligations. Three hundred and forty-eight decisions closing inquiries were made. That represents a 40% increase compared to 2006. In 95 cases, the inquiry revealed no maladministration. Such a finding is not always negative for the complainant, who at least has the benefit of a full explanation from the institution concerned. Even when maladministration is not found, I may identify opportunities to improve the quality of administration provided by institutions. If so, I point them out in a further remark.
Many of my inquiries result in a positive sum outcome that satisfies both the complainant and the institution complained against. One hundred and twenty-nine cases were settled by the institution concerned to the satisfaction of the complainant. That is double the number of cases settled in this way in 2006, and reflects a growing willingness on the part of institutions and bodies to regard complaints made to the Ombudsman as an opportunity to recognise and put right mistakes that have occurred.
When I find maladministration, I try to achieve a friendly solution. In some cases, this can be achieved by the institution or body concerned by offering compensation to the complainant. Any such offer is made ex gratia, or in other words without admission of legal liability and without creating a legal precedent. When a friendly solution is not possible I close the case with a critical remark. A critical remark is also appropriate if it is no longer possible for the instance of maladministration to be eliminated. It confirms that the complaint is justified and indicates to the institution or body concerned what it is has done wrong. Such a criticism is intended to be constructive, so as to help avoid similar maladministration in the future.
It is important for institutions and bodies to follow up critical remarks and to take prompt action to resolve outstanding problems. To better monitor the impact of my criticism, I launched a study of the follow-up to all critical remarks, and to the cases involving a further remark, made in 2006. The results of that study, published on my website and sent to all the bodies concerned, should provide encouragement to the European public service to improve practices and further develop a culture of service to citizens.
In cases where it is still possible to eliminate the instance of maladministration, I normally make a draft recommendation to the institution or body. If it fails to respond satisfactorily, I may send a special report to Parliament. I submitted one such report to you criticising the Commission for not dealing with an infringement complaint concerning the European Working Time Directive. I welcome Parliament's support, as expressed in your resolution of 3 September 2008, based on Mr De Rossa's report.
This year, I have again included star cases in my annual report. These are cases where I consider that institutions or bodies involved responded to my inquiries in an exemplary fashion. Seven such star cases are highlighted. Four of these concerned the Commission, one concerned the Council, one the European Central Bank and one the European Aviation Safety Agency. I have continued to make every effort to ensure that EU institutions and bodies adopt a citizen-centred approach in all their activities, by seeking every opportunity to achieve friendly solutions and by launching more own-initiative inquiries in order to identify problems and encourage best practice.
I would now like to mention some other activities undertaken with a view to ensuring the best possible service to citizens. I have continued my efforts to improve the quality of information concerning rights under EU law, provided especially through the European Network of Ombudsmen. That network, which includes the Petitions Committee, cooperates in case handling and in sharing experiences and best practice. One of the purposes of the network is to facilitate the rapid transfer of complaints which are admissible for me to a competent ombudsman or similar body. When possible, I transfer cases directly or give suitable advice to the complainant. During 2007 I was able to help 867 complainants in this manner.
A further important initiative which should come to fruition within the next quarter of the year is that my office is developing an interactive guide to help citizens find the most appropriate avenue of redress for their grievances. This guide should enable an even greater proportion of complainants to address directly the body best equipped to deal with the complaint. Complaints which are inadmissible for me will therefore be resolved more promptly and effectively. My institution will then be better able to fulfil its core role - to help citizens who are unhappy with the way they are being treated by EU institutions and bodies.
The Ombudsman cannot work alone. Ensuring a top-class administration is a task that must be fulfilled proactively in cooperation with EU institutions and bodies. The increased settlement of cases and friendly solutions is a source of encouragement and serves as an indication of our mutual efforts to contribute to building citizens' trust, vis-à-vis the Union, at a point in time where that is greatly needed. I am also deeply grateful for Parliament's support and guidance, both in terms of the budgetary resources you provide my institution with and in terms of the positive relationship I enjoy with the Petitions Committee. With your continued support, I will endeavour to build on the achievements of this past year.
Finally, as this is the last occasion during this parliamentary term that I have the honour of presenting my annual report to this House, I would like to put on record my deep appreciation for the close cooperation and good advice that I have received from Parliament and individual Members during the past four and a half years.
(Applause)
You are absolutely right. This Parliament has shown confidence in the Ombudsman.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, on behalf of the Commission and of my colleague, Vice-President Wallström, let me thank the rapporteur Mrs Zdravkova for her excellent work. We welcome the Committee on Petitions' report about the Ombudsman's annual report on his activities in 2007.
As you know, this Commission has made a strong commitment to improving its administration, and we are improving. We can see that, both from the Ombudsman's Annual Report and from the Committee on Petitions report.
In 2007 the number of cases in which an institution or a body actually put an end to maladministration practices as a result of a complaint lodged with the Ombudsman doubled. This reflects the willingness of institutions - including, definitely, the Commission - and bodies to regard complaints as an opportunity to correct errors and cooperate with the Ombudsman in the public interest.
Also, the number of cases in which no maladministration practice was established increased. The Commission is happy about this, since we are the institution that receives most of these complaints.
I also want to underline the fact that the Ombudsman has been proposing an increasing number of friendly solutions in order to settle disputes and that, overall, the Commission has been cooperative and appreciative of this type of proposal, wherever possible. In 2007, only one special report concerning the Commission was submitted to Parliament by the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman mentioned this.
But I would like to remind you that this special report concerns the Working Time Directive, and it was only last month that you had a discussion on that with my colleague Vladimir Špidla.
Let me conclude with three specific points which are touched upon in your report as well as the Ombudsman's Annual Report. First, on infringements. As you are aware, the Commission has reorganised its decision-taking on infringements, with a view to facilitating the progress of cases. This was presented in the 2007 communication 'A Europe of results - applying Community law'. We are following up cases more actively and organising the work more effectively for citizens. Also, an EU pilot project has been launched. More solutions to problems should be found more quickly.
Second, on the call for EU institutions and bodies to adopt a common approach towards a European code of good administrative behaviour. I want to draw your attention to the fact that the Commission has its own code of good administrative behaviour, adopted in 2000. This code still constitutes a modern and very effective instrument. Its implementation is well established. I do not want to prejudge the future, but for the time being we want to keep things that way.
Third, regarding the communication policy. The idea of launching an information campaign for European citizens to help them find out more about the duties and competences of the European Ombudsman is definitely welcomed by the Commission.
Each institution, including the European Commission, also has its own website, where complaints and petitions may be lodged. The Europa website is common to all EU institutions and has links to all other EU institutions, including the Ombudsman's website. In this way, citizens are easily and smoothly directed to the bodies able to settle their grievances and complaints. The idea of an interactive manual designed to assist citizens in identifying the most suitable forum for resolving their problems is well worth studying much more closely.
Because in all this, we should never lose sight of who comes first and who we do all this for: the European citizens.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Mr Diamandouros, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mrs Zdravkova on her report, which I believe is her first. It forms an excellent foundation for the debate and the discussion on the results of your work over the past year, Mr Diamandouros.
This report follows on, to a certain extent, from the report which I produced for the European Parliament at the same point two years ago. At that time, you had just launched the network of national ombudsmen and committees on petitions and it seems clear from the report that this network has been extremely well received by the citizens of Europe who are the main focus of your work. In addition, your education campaign, which has resulted in more admissible complaints being received, is a successful example of the fact that efforts to educate citizens about their rights and their opportunities for obtaining help are well worthwhile.
I also strongly welcome the fact that the report, in a similar way to the report produced by Mr Mavrommatis a few years ago, highlights the success of the informal procedures which you want to concentrate on more closely. This success is due to the fact that the time spent on formalities can be reduced. It is good for you to continue with this citizen-centred approach.
Some examples of your work over the past year demonstrate your ability to act, but also your sensitivity towards the general public in Europe, both in relation to the European Working Time Directive and the internal organisation of the European Parliament. Of course, it is not always easy for you to find the right words. However, weak points must be exposed by the Ombudsman with a certain amount of advance notice and appropriate restraint. In the end, it is all about us working together to serve the citizens of Europe. You have made a very positive contribution towards this over the past year, Mr Diamandouros.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (GA) Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Zdravkova, for her work on this report. The office of the Ombudsman is clearly improving. We have long complained that there are too many complaints being made to that office which do not relate to its function. Last year, for the very first time, that number has reduced and I congratulate him for that work.
The Ombudsman's interactive handbook is a creative solution that assists citizens in finding the proper institution for their complaint and I think it could be used more widely. If we are to demonstrate to the citizens of the European Community that this Union is working on their behalf, we must ensure that they get answers and solutions to their problems.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on a very comprehensive report and also the Ombudsman and his staff on the many positive steps that they took in 2007.
What I find most encouraging is that the Ombudsman works at so many different levels: it is not just about processing complaints, which is central to his work, but also about how resolutions or solutions are arrived at. There is an increasing number of friendly solutions, more informal procedures, where relations with the institutions are such that a growing number of cases are solved rapidly. That is real progress and must be built on. Citizen-friendly solutions are where we want to go.
I am also pleased to see that better communication at all levels is central to the agenda of the Ombudsman. The adoption of the European Network of Ombudsmen statement and increased cooperation in this area are vital, and we look forward to the launch of the new website, which will include an interactive guide to assist citizens.
However, this brings me to my final comment, which concerns citizens, and refers to the proposed oral amendment on paragraph 23. That paragraph reads: 'Proposes that the Ombudsman take measures to reduce the number of complaints (a total of 1 021) in relation to which no steps have been taken by him at all'. The oral amendment seeks to change that final phrase - 'in relation to which no steps have been taken by him at all' - to the statement 'in such cases where no action is possible'.
From the perspective of the Ombudsman, no action is possible; but from the perspective of the citizen, no action is taken - and those are two very different perspectives.
So I have a question: is it made clear to the 1 021 citizens that no action is possible by the Ombudsman, with a clear explanation given with further advice where possible, or is it the case that simply no action is taken? If the former is true and citizens are given reasons, I have no problem and, indeed, I am very pleased. But if the latter is true and no action is taken, then citizens will be frustrated and angry. So I would like clarification on that point, please.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DA) Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for her splendid report. It is a fine piece of work, and we were particularly delighted with the considerable willingness there was to cooperate. I also wish to thank the Ombudsman for his brilliant annual report. The institution of the Ombudsman is, of course, incredibly important for the EU. Its work shows that the EU is closer to Europeans than it is reputed to be, listening as it does to criticism. Happily, it is on the right lines. Far more complaints than last year were resolved to the complainants' satisfaction through the EU institution itself making proper allowance for them. It shows that the EU system is coming to understand the need to serve people as best as possible. Unfortunately, there are institutions that do not comply with the recommendations. In such circumstances, all that the Ombudsman can do is place the matter before Parliament - an option he can hardly be accused of misusing, since only one case was presented last year to the Committee on Petitions.
When a case comes before us in Parliament, we are clearly obliged to say that we are willing, at least in principle, to go to the European Court of Justice if the institution concerned does not comply with the Ombudsman's decision. In that way, we can give the Ombudsman the necessary clout and authority in the system. On behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I have tabled a couple of amendments, the sole purpose of which is to clarify the concept of maladministration. It should be possible to identify those cases in which the Ombudsman can observe that an institution or other EU body has not complied with the rules and principles applicable to it. However, there is no maladministration in cases in which the Ombudsman merely notes that there is room for improvement in the way in which the institution handles matters. It is that distinction that my amendments are aimed at clarifying.
Finally, I have a similar question to that raised by Mrs Harkin, concerning when cases are rejected. We should like to know why they are rejected. The reason should ideally be given in the answers to the complaints, and I want to ask if that is in fact the case, as otherwise matters would be very frustrating, as has already been pointed out.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, Ombudsman, Commissioner, I should like to begin by commending Mrs Zdarvkova on her very good report. The report states that the Ombudsman is doing a fine job. It also highlights the excellent cooperation between the Ombudsman and the European Parliament and the Committee on Petitions. In a sense, the latter acts on behalf of the European Parliament regarding contact with the Ombudsman.
The report was adopted unanimously, without any abstentions. This indicates that the House shares Mrs Zdravkova's opinion on the high quality of the Ombudsman's work. The Ombudsman often attends meetings of the Committee on Petitions and always provides detailed information on his work. Committee meetings are always attended by a representative of the Ombudsman who is present here today, and I would like to thank him for that as it demonstrates that we are following each other's work.
The number of complaints deemed admissible points to certain conclusions. One is that society within the European Union is following your work, Ombudsman, and thus forming a better idea of which complaints should be addressed to you. You certainly have not changed your policy on what is admissible and what is not. You remain objective, and your work is such that people appreciate it and are coming to understand it better. The Committee on Petitions is working alongside the Court of Justice and your department, Ombudsman, to bring the European Union and its institutions closer to the people. Therein lies your success, Ombudsman. We would like to thank you very much for your efforts. Thanks are also due to Mrs Zdravkova for her report.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (EL) Madam President, the report on the European Ombudsman's activities affords us an opportunity to ascertain how citizens view the workings of the institutions of the European Union and gives us practical ideas and examples as to how the institutions of the European Union can improve how they operate and how they serve the citizens.
I in turn should like to thank the European Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, for his exceptional work, and our rapporteur, Mrs Zdravkova, on her very interesting report and take this opportunity to underline certain points:
Firstly, the fact that the number of complaints received by the Ombudsman is increasing is a very good thing, but it contradicts the Commission's self-satisfaction in terms of constant improvements to its administration and greater transparency. I would advise the Commission to be more honest and more modest.
It is also a good thing that the number of complaints admitted and the efficacy of the interventions of the European Ombudsman have increased. However, the large majority of complaints still concern matters which do not come directly within his jurisdiction. There is a large proportion of citizens within the European Union who want greater transparency and sound management both from the European institutions and in the application of Community legislation in general and, unfortunately, they do not always find it. That is why the European Parliament has repeatedly called for all the institutions and organisations of the European Union to be given the financial and human resources needed to ensure that citizens receive immediate and in-depth replies to their complaints, questions and referrals.
We also need cooperation between the European Ombudsman and the ombudsmen in similar organisations at national, regional and local level in the Member States. We also need to give a broader, more expansive interpretation to the term 'maladministration', so that it also includes cases in which the administrative authorities demonstrate sloppiness and negligence or a lack of transparency in the performance of their duties towards the citizens. This will result in more material interventions on the part of the Ombudsman, which is in the citizens' interests. It is also extremely important for the Ombudsman to be able to take up cases relating to all the institutions of the European Union, including those which operate under the third pillar.
Finally, I should like to reiterate once again the call to all the institutions and organisations of the European Union to adopt a common approach towards a European code of good administrative behaviour. It is not enough for us to speak highly of the European Ombudsman....
(The President cut off the speaker)
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Madam President, together with Volvo and IKEA, the institution known as the Ombudsman is Sweden's best-known contribution to the global community. It is a very important institutional innovation for democracy in general and the EU institutions in particular. Why? Well, because an Ombudsman is there to ensure that people can demand their rights in political and bureaucratic structures that are becoming ever more complex and, thus, non-transparent. Nowhere in the democratic world is complexity and non-transparency more dominant than in the byzantine power structure that the EU has established and that it is constantly extending further.
It is rare for me to feel any enthusiasm for the reports presented here in the European Parliament. Whenever I do so, the reports concerned are those relating to the internal market or an environmental issue of some kind. Mrs Zdravkova's report is another exception to my rule, in which we see a picture emerge of the Ombudsman working pretty effectively to fortify individuals against the byzantine hegemony that is unfolding. I am thinking of information provided to the general public via a properly updated website, information sheets, networks of national and regional ombudsmen, conferences and, especially, meetings and other contacts with the system's eurocrats, designed to make the latter see that they are there for the benefit of Europeans, rather than Europeans being there for the benefit of them.
At the same time, it is regrettable that Europe's powerful elite pursues a European project associated by most people with impenetrable and byzantine bureaucracy. In anticipation of a grassroots reaction against this development, we in the European Parliament should strengthen the institution of the Ombudsman. We should therefore vote in favour of Mrs Zdravkova's report and, especially, welcome the demand that the Ombudsman have full access to EU documents in the course of his investigations.
(DE) Madam President, the Ombudsman's work is undoubtedly fundamentally good. However, you have a blind spot, which is the administration of the European Parliament. For example, in April 2007 Mr Eduardo Bugalho, one of the Secretaries-General here, made a firm promise of a position to an employee, Martin Ehrenhauser. Then the relatively new Secretary-General Harald Rømer intervened and suddenly the position no longer existed and things were continually put off. This has had an effect on me.
I am probably the only Member of this Parliament who has no member of parliamentary staff available to him at all. Instead of taking up this issue, you have turned a blind eye. However, you yourself talk about trust in the institutions of the European Union. I was elected by 14% of all the citizens of Austria and I am unable to work in the same way as almost all my fellow Members. So you should not be surprised that the level of criticism is growing and that, in Austria in particular, the criticism of the EU as it currently stands - not of Europe - is reaching epidemic proportions.
Madam President, rather than dealing with the history I will congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report and the Ombudsman for his presentation today and his cooperation with us, and indeed the Commission statement. Could I ask, in particular, for consistency in how the Commission deals with citizens? I am concerned that in some cases when an individual brings a case to the Commission the needs and rights of the individual are overtaken by the involvement of the Member State, almost like a victim in a court case being ignored by the prosecution. I shall give you an example.
A constituent of mine complained about the Irish planning laws as they apply in rural areas. The action of the Commission in handling that case was exemplary in their dealings with the citizen in meeting and engaging. However, as the case moved on, I am afraid that declined - I believe, in favour of the Member State to the absolute frustration of the citizen. I know this person and they were very pleased initially and are now very frustrated. In other words, the citizen who brings forward the information, who provides the impetus for action is forgotten about in the ongoing process.
I think, Commissioner, when you asked the question 'Who comes first?', you said it was the EU citizens. I am not so sure.
Madam President, I am extremely satisfied with the work of the Ombudsman as explained in his annual report and in his speech. The European Ombudsman is a vital part of the democratic structure and functioning of the Union.
The largest proportion of the Ombudsman's inquiries concern lack of transparency and refusal to provide information. This is an area of our activities that we must improve if we are to become more credible in the eyes of citizens. It is important that we support the work of the Ombudsman and that of the Committee on Petitions. Both deal with the handling of complaints and petitions on EU matters from citizens that help us to find out what is not working at European level and to take corrective measures.
Cases being brought to the Ombudsman and to the Committee on Petitions are of increasing complexity and therefore require greater investment of resources by the institutions in order that citizens' concerns are properly addressed. If these concerns are properly addressed, then we will be making some progress towards improving the credibility of, and confidence in, the Union as a whole.
(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, the European Ombudsman's report for 2007 demonstrates how beneficial its activities are as a champion of citizens's rights when these have been infringed, or the European institutions threaten to do so. I welcome the fact that the number of admissible complaints has increased, as this proves that Europe's citizens are becoming increasingly aware of the real power of the Ombudsman. I believe that this institution must have the necessary financial and human resources to enable it to effectively and fully carry out its mission. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European code of good administrative behaviour are and must continue to be a model and a basis for the activities of the public protector of the principles of good administration such as transparency, accountability, legality and fairness on the part of the European institutions.
In this respect, we need to increase information campaigns among citizens by the Ombudsman to raise awareness of their rights and the Ombudsman's powers to stand up for them, and its cooperation with national Ombudsmen in exchanging good practice. The introduction of an internet manual is a helpful initiative, but setting up a public on-line register for complaints would increase transparency and help increase the trust of citizens.
- (PL) Madam President, certain European Union citizens seem to treat the European Ombudsman as if he were a God, requesting him to resolve issues and deal with matters that are clearly outside his competence. This is underlined by the fact that, for procedural reasons, the Ombudsman can only consider one in six of the complaints he receives. We must conclude that there is a total lack of knowledge as to what the European Ombudsman's function and remit are, and how far the scope of his action extends. The citizens of the Member States are not to blame for this situation. The blame lies with the Union's institutions, which have not succeeded in informing public opinion in the Member States about the scope of the Ombudsman's remit. Unless something is done about this, citizens of the Member States will continue to write to the Ombudsman and then be surprised that he cannot intervene. The fact that more than one thousand of the complaints addressed to the Ombudsman were not considered and no action was taken on them is also cause for concern, as was mentioned in the report.
(NL) Madam President, the report by the Committee on Petitions is, in essence, very constructive and very positive about the work of the European Ombudsman, and I can personally endorse this view to a large extent. I would, however, take the opportunity that is being given to me to draw the Ombudsman's attention to the systematic way in which the European Parliament itself, and, in fact, the Commission to an even greater extent, are ignoring and infringing a number of very clear legal rules, and, in a number of matters, indulge in hidden and therefore, if you think about it, undemocratic decision-making.
More specifically, in my view, the European Ombudsman should in next year's report, and I would ask him to do this, focus on the way in which the rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon as a result of a democratic referendum in Ireland, rendering this Treaty legally null and void, is deliberately and repeatedly ignored in documents and in decision-making by all European institutions. I hope that the Ombudsman is prepared to take on this task and as such ...
(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, the Ombudsman is an independent institution and a mechanism for controlling the administration of the European Union. The fact that the number of admissible complaints received by the Ombudsman increased in 2007, while the number of inadmissible complaints fell in 2007, compared with 2006, is proof of the fact that European citizens have started to understand the remit of this institution.
Furthermore, I in turn welcome the efforts made by Mr Diamandouros to improve the standard of information provided to citizens in connection with their rights under Community law during his time in this position. Mrs Zdravkova also deserves hearty congratulations on having achieved unanimous decisions and cooperation in her first report for our committee. The European Network of Ombudsmen, to which the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament also belongs, has approximately 90 offices in 31 countries. Consequently, even at this level, the cooperation of both the network and of the European Ombudsman are valuable in achieving the objective of transmitting complaints to the competent Ombudsman or agency as quickly as possible.
Finally, the European Parliament and the Committee on Petitions should help the Ombudsman to achieve his twin objective of promoting sound administration by the institutions and improving communication with the citizens. Thank you.
Madam President, I should like to say to the Ombudsman that it has been a really interesting debate: sniped at by Hans-Peter Martin, lauded as a god by another. I think it shows that he has probably - just about - got it right.
Ombudsman, Parliament does not always place you in a very comfortable position when you are called upon especially to rule on decisions that we take and the actions of this House. I see that I have excited Hans-Peter Martin - how wonderful! But let me just tell you, Ombudsman, that you always carry out your work in a constructive way and absolutely within your competences. Probably the reason why we have seen an increase in your workload is because you have been so effective in promoting your work and your office, and I congratulate you on that.
It leaves me nothing more than to say that it is an excellent report. I look forward to contributions from other colleagues, but also I enjoy working with you, not the least in relation to access to documents, but also as Vice-Chair of the Committee on Petitions.
(Applause)
(FI) Madam President, my thanks go to the Ombudsman and his entire office for the valuable work they have done to deliver excellent administration and transparency.
It is very important for our citizens that when there is a grievance, they can lodge a complaint about it and can be sure that the matter will be dealt with properly and satisfactorily, and that is what happens. I also wish to thank the Ombudsman for having shown the strength to fight, almost in vain one might say, for greater transparency in the administration of the European Union. We know that there is really a lot to do with regard to this. Progress is slow, but let us be glad about each small step and let us keep banging our heads...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(MT) Thank you Madam President. I also wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Zdravkova, as well as the Ombudsman for all his hard work. I believe that what unites us in this debate is simple: it is the defence of our citizens, the fact that we can all agree that we must stand guard over our citizens' rights; that we act as their shield, and that when they find themselves having to deal with unfair authorities and unjust bureaucratic procedures, they should not be made to feel abandoned. On the contrary, they should have every faith that we stand behind them. Therefore, since these are the common factors that bring us together, let us go on working together. In times like these, when our citizens are feeling rather detached from the European Union, it is essential that the Ombudsman, the Commission and the Committee on Petitions work towards building up the consumer's trust towards the European Union, brick by brick. Let us go on working together to prove that we are indeed worthy of that trust.
(EL) Madam President, Ombudsman, I have noted the rapporteur's phrase expressing her support for the role of the Ombudsman as a valuable source of constant improvement to the European administration.
The more citizens who know about the institution of the Ombudsman, the better Europe will be; it will be a Europe which is not frightened to address and rectify its weaknesses. That is why it is particularly important for the code of good administrative behaviour to be applied by all the institutions and organisations. That is why a broad interpretation of the concept of maladministration is particularly useful. If we speak of active citizenship, we cannot at the same time, when citizens take recourse to the institutions of the European Union in order to enforce their rights, be unable to give a basic response to their concerns or, even worse, be unable to safeguard the fundamental values of the European Union.
- (PL) Madam President, despite the overall increase in the number of admissible complaints received by the Ombudsman in 2007, he handled 17% more than in the previous year. In this connection, it should be emphasised that the number of inadmissible complaints has decreased dramatically in comparison to 2006, which suggests that complainants are better informed about the Ombudsman's competences.
It emerges from the report that last year the Ombudsman carried out his duties in an active and balanced manner. This is true of his consideration of petitions, of his work maintaining constructive relations with the European Union's bodies and institutions and also of his efforts to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. Nonetheless, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that the citizens receive swift and accurate responses to their questions, complaints and petitions. Above all, the causes of the complaints must be addressed. That involves substantial improvement as regards increasing the transparency of decision-making processes and the functioning of the European Union's administration. Those are the areas generating the majority of the citizens' complaints.
(ES) Madam President, I too want to congratulate Mrs Zdravkova on her excellent report. I would also congratulate all of us, including the Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, of course, on the progress and improvements that have been made in his work.
Among the 'star cases', I should like to highlight those connected with European transport, specifically the improvement of information on passenger rights and the replacement by the European Aviation Safety Agency of a contested decision.
The own-initiative investigations are, I feel, very positive as they have focused on the issue of Commission payments and also on non-discrimination of people with disabilities.
We should like this collection of know-how, 'star cases' and good administrative behaviour to be specifically included in the campaign supported by Parliament.
To end, I must also mention in particular the sixth seminar of the European Network of Ombudsmen which introduced, for the first time, the participation of ombudsmen from the regions. I must also mention the excellent statement made by the European Network of Ombudsmen which both the Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, and we ourselves would be advised to use.
(RO) The European Ombudsman is an institution which is something special, a bit of a novelty for citizens from those countries admitted into the European Union in the last two waves. However, it needs to be promoted more actively, with a very clear indication as to what the European Ombudsman can and cannot do. We also think that the number of own-initiative inquiries should be somewhat higher. If the organisation does not have enough staff of its own, we recommend calling for volunteers in an effort to promote the European Ombudsman institution, especially volunteers from the countries from the last wave or two of enlargement, including Members of the European Parliament.
(DE) Madam President, the gap between the European Union and the citizens of Europe should not be as large as it has become. We must ensure that this gap is reduced.
The Ombudsman has a very important role to play in this respect, in particular in areas where and at times when he does his job well. The most important thing is that we can count on the Ombudsman's commitment and sense of proportion. We must not raise excessive expectations which no one can meet.
On the other hand, it is also about ensuring that abuses which occur in the administration of European bodies are actually dealt with and, where possible, that sensible solutions are sought which will satisfy the citizens and ensure their security.
Until now the Ombudsman has shown that he takes this task seriously and performs it well. We can only hope that this will continue to be the case and thank him and the rapporteur for this report.
(RO) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and to emphasise the importance of the European Ombudsman. I would like to mention in particular the positive consequences of his recommendations concerning the use of the languages of the new Member States in the recruitment and selection process organised by EPSO. I would also like to stress the importance for the internal market of the recommendation made by the Ombudsman which requested the Commission to avoid, in the future, unjustified restrictions with regard to the official languages which can be used to submit bids based on invitations to tender.
Bearing in mind the importance of protecting personal data, I would like to welcome the cooperation between the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Ombudsman. I would just mention, on this point, the Community regulations on the passenger register as part of international flights. This type of cooperation will become even more important in the future. I also welcome the resolution of the SOLVIT case where a Bulgarian doctor has been given a certificate of conformity, which allows him to practise his profession in France and ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
- (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my compliments to the rapporteur. As a member of the Committee on Petitions, on the basis of the information contained in the report as well as my own personal experience, I would like both to extend my thanks and to make a request. My thanks being for the clear progress made compared to the previous year: the number of admissible complaints rose from 449 to 518, that is from 12% to 15% of the total, and there was also an increase in inquiries carried out. I therefore believe that we are on the right track.
However, and here I come to my request, we still need to up our efforts in terms of communication. Let us examine together effective strategies, perhaps starting with our schools, to guarantee quality information for citizens on the person, role and powers of the European Ombudsman. There are promising projects of this kind, to begin this year, which must be implemented and supported. Then we will undoubtedly see a further improvement in today's already impressive figures.
Ombudsman. - Madam President, we are under great pressure because you have to vote in about six or seven minutes, so I will offer my excuses to all the people who spoke. I would like to thank all the Members of Parliament who have been gracious enough to comment favourably on my report, and I will only try to address very specific cases, if I may.
Let me very briefly thank Mrs Jäätteenmäki and Mr Schwab for what I take to be their particular support and their plea for the Ombudsman's efforts to increase transparency. This is something to which I remain committed, and I pledge to redouble my efforts to do that, with the support of this body. I need your support to do that, and I ask you for it.
Mr Martin, I would be very happy to meet you personally so that I might be able to have a chance to listen to the case and be able to respond to it. I would like to thank Mr Cashman and Mr Busuttil for their comments and encouragement. I would also like to thank the Members who have spoken very favourably about the actions of the Ombudsman concerning strengthening the activities and the rights of citizens in the new Member States, who are in fact in greater need of becoming more familiar with the practices of the Ombudsman and the Union.
Let me now address directly the questions from Ms Harkin, Ms Auken and Mr Czarnecki, concerning the cases that have not been addressed. To avoid any misunderstanding, let me make very clear that every single case we have received has, in fact, been addressed. There has not been a case that has not received a response. There has never been a case in which we have not written back to the complainant. We wrote and we informed the complainant why the European Ombudsman could not deal with the complaint. The 1 021 cases listed as 'no action possible' are cases where we could not help the complainant by opening an in-depth inquiry, by transferring the case or by offering useful advice. After this came in I checked and I have some reports. In one third of all these cases the complainant had already contacted the authority that was competent to deal with the complaint, such as a national original Ombudsman or the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament. In 20% of the cases they received, the case had already been handled by the court and I could not handle it. In 17% of the cases there was no competent body in existence that could possibly handle it. In 13% of the cases the only appropriate advice would have been to contact a lawyer, but the complainant had already done so.
Therefore I have tried to cover all the cases. I would like to assure you that there has never been any case in which the Ombudsman has not written, explained and provided written information. I hope this addresses the questions that you raised.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would just like to reiterate my support for Mrs Zdravkova's report and to thank the Ombudsman for his cooperation. Regarding those concrete cases mentioned, we will provide additional information. It is true that, when we address a complaint, the complainants are not always completely satisfied with the solution proposed. However, the Commission always tries to deal with each and every case in a very constructive spirit, and we will continue to do so.
rapporteur. - (BG) I would just like to take this opportunity to once again thank all speakers for their kind words about my report, my work and for the work of Mr Diamandouros. This has been a useful, and, above all. a positive discussion, and I am sure that it will encourage Mr Diamandouros to make even greater efforts towards closer cooperation with the institutions, and above all encourage better communication with our European citizens. I can see that there are many visitors in the hall, and I hope that this discussion has been useful and, above all, of interest to them.
(DE) Madam President, I should like to start by thanking the Ombudsman for the opportunity to speak. I am happy to accept.
I have, in fact, asked to speak because Mr Cashman has made attacks and insinuations which I would like to reject out of hand. They simply indicate how nervous people become when there is a question of increasing transparency.
However, you, Mr Diamandouros, are in favour of more transparency. I can only encourage you to keep to your convictions with regard to travel expenses and other similar matters, where the majority of Parliament gets you into trouble. I believe that you are on the right track, Mr Diamandouros.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 11 a.m.
(The sitting was suspended at 11.05 a.m. and resumed at 11.10 a.m.)


Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
(CS) I voted against the Böge report on releasing resources from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund because, particularly in the case of the Austrian request, it involves a highly unsystematic approach which is reflected in an unprecedented high level of support per person. If there must be time limited individual support aimed at assisting workers affected by redundancies as a result of globalisation, such support must relate to real individual needs and the real economic context. However, this is not happening and, on the contrary, the procedure for determining this support has been haphazard and arbitrary. In my opinion it is therefore necessary to set out firm criteria. Using the funds in this way is no solution to the problem but is actually a waste of taxpayers' money.
Mr President, the reason that I think many of us are interested in trade is really the idea of how we help those in the very poorest countries to get out of poverty. We know that one of the best ways to help them out of poverty is to help the entrepreneurs in poorer countries. Entrepreneurs in many poorer countries are crying out for help and open markets and it is important that we support them.
But we also have to look within our own borders to see how we are setting up barriers to facilitating trade with poorer countries. In many cases, poorer countries see the trade rules as skewed against them and they look at things like the common agricultural policy, cotton subsidies, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and the tariffs on higher value imports to the EU. It is important that we show that the trading system is truly open and that we help the poorest countries as much as possible to eradicate poverty.
Mr President, if we are to alleviate poverty in the world, we have to increase global trade. If we go down the path of protectionism because of the world's current financial crisis, the only thing we will do is delay bringing millions of people out of poverty, and millions of people will die. If we do not grasp this challenge right now and look forward beyond this crisis, we will leave behind a legacy of such awful proportions that a billion people will find themselves unable to live.
We have a food crisis, we have climate change, we have global warming, we have floods, earthquakes and all sorts of catastrophes which call for our help, and the only way we can uplift everyone is to actually increase global trade, and I am very grateful that the new Trade Commissioner-designate is listening to me.
(FR) Mr President, concerning this resolution on the World Trade Organisation, and contrary to the opinion voiced by the previous speaker, I believe that it is not international trade that will ensure that fewer than one billion human beings die or suffer from malnutrition, but subsistence farming. It will ensure this long before international trade does.
I have already had an opportunity to speak on this issue during the debate, and for no other reason than because the amendment concerning public services and the need for governments to be able to control public services relating to fundamental problems such as water and energy has been rejected, I have voted against this resolution.
Written explanations of vote
in writing. - We are not laissez-faire capitalists and we do believe in state help for workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. We would want that help to be provided by sovereign states to their own workers. We are not, of course, even in favour of EU membership. However, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund exists and has had money allocated to it.
This fund is an unwelcome substitute for help by Member States. If it were to be proposed that British workers should be helped from this fund, I would obviously support it. Therefore, I must reluctantly support Swedish, Dutch and Austrian workers being supported from it. If there should be a No vote, the money would not be handed back to the taxpayer. It would be retained by the EU and then perhaps spent on a much less deserving cause.
The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was set up to grant additional assistance to workers affected by the consequences of major changes in the structure of international trade. Portugal, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland and Austria have already applied to it, which shows that this problem affects Member States in different geographical areas and with different economic models and trajectories.
Such situations, which are happening at an alarming rate, require decision makers to think carefully about the European economic and social model as well as its sustainability and its future. They also mean that it is absolutely crucial to promote ways of creating quality new jobs. For these to succeed, we must provide support, remove burdens and cut out unjustifiable red tape for those who are still willing to risk starting new businesses and joining innovative projects, despite the difficulties.
No matter how much assistance is granted to workers, it will be worthless if companies keep closing down one after the other and if we cannot reverse the investment drain in Europe.
The cases in question, which I endorse, concern Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands, and they have won broad support in the parliamentary committees concerned, both for tabling the motion for a resolution and for issuing an opinion.
Although we maintain our critical position regarding the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, since we believe it would have been more important to adopt measures to prevent unemployment in the first place, we voted in favour of the mobilisation of this fund to provide further assistance for workers affected by the consequences of company restructuring or the liberalisation of international trade.
This case concerns the mobilisation of approximately EUR 16 million for Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands in order to provide assistance for workers made redundant in the car making and construction industries.
This is the fifth time the fund has been mobilised in 2009, making an overall amount of EUR 53 million that has been used out of the EUR 500 million planned. It is quite symptomatic that little more than 10% of the planned amount has been used during a period of severe social crisis, and that in itself at least demonstrates the need for a review of the regulations governing the fund.
I voted in favour of the Böge report on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Its aim is to protect jobs and to make it easier for workers who have been made redundant following changes in the structure of international trade and the global financial and economic crisis to re-enter the labour market.
Three years on from its creation in 2006, and in the current context of global economic and financial crisis, it was crucial to ease the conditions governing use of this European fund. Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands are today the target of these more effective and rapid measures, and I look forward to all the EU Member States having greater access to this finance. Linked as it is to the financial framework for 2007-2013, the maximum annual amount of the Fund may not exceed EUR 500 million, but it is crucial that these resources are implemented in full, which is not the case today.
The European Union must use all the resources at its disposal to deal with the consequences of the economic crisis.
in writing. - (DE) I am voting in favour of the report on the provision of EUR 15.9 million in assistance to Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands. As a consequence of the global economic crisis, a total of 744 workers have had to be made redundant in the automotive supply industry in Styria alone. The application rightly submitted by Austria for assistance totalling EUR 5 705 365 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has now been approved by the EU.
That is absolutely justified, as Austria has been hit particularly hard by the slump in exports. For example, exports of road vehicles and cars have fallen by 51.3% and 59.4%, respectively. As a result of the close interconnection between the companies in the automotive industry and the low-level of diversification of many suppliers, the crisis is being felt throughout the automotive industry.
Swedish, Austrian and Dutch workers are being sacrificed to globalisation. We reiterate our strong opposition to the philosophy underpinning this fund, which makes European workers mere 'adjustment variables' enabling the smooth running of a form of neoliberal globalisation that is never called into question. The interests of giants such as the US company Ford, the current owner of Volvo Cars, which cleared a profit of almost USD 1 billion in the third quarter of 2009, or Aviva, Axa and BlackRock, the main shareholders of Heijmans NV, today supplant the general interest of European citizens. The fund is contributing to this despoilment.
The European Union is an area of solidarity. That spirit is the context for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The fund provides essential support to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. That is even more the case when we realise that an increasing number of companies is relocating, taking advantage of the reduced labour costs found in various countries, particularly China and India, often at the price of social, labour and environmental dumping.
Once again, the consequences of globalisation are having to be cushioned through the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This time, unfortunately, Styria has also been hard hit. A total of 744 people from nine different companies have lost their jobs over the last few months, and that is why the Province of Styria has asked the EU for assistance. As with previous applications, everything has been examined very thoroughly and I am pleased that the people of Styria meet all of the requirements. Especially during the current financial and economic crisis, we are being very clearly reminded once again of the negative effects of globalisation.
With that in mind, it is even more incomprehensible that Parliament has today adopted a resolution promoting more liberalisation and the breaking down of trade barriers, and hence more globalisation. Until a change of thinking occurs in the EU, we can only work to reduce the damage caused by globalisation in the countries concerned. Therefore, I have voted without reservations in favour of releasing aid from the fund.
I endorsed mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, because the situation in labour markets today demands that we act on behalf of workers. Previous crises were characterised by the fact that they affected specific regions, and were concentrated in one place. At such times, all those who lost their jobs or faced financial problems were able to go abroad to find work or could have several jobs. Today, in relation to the global character of the financial crisis, such options are not available.
The current situation in the financial markets requires that we support many millions of people who have lost their jobs over the past year. I am not, of course, talking only about help in looking for work, but also about using the elasticity of the labour market, helping workers to gain new qualifications and organising appropriate training, for example, in the use of computers or giving careers advice. Most of the money in the EGF should be designated for promoting entrepreneurship and giving assistance with self-employment because, when people have lost their job, setting up a business and generating an income on their own account represents an opportunity to maintain financial stability and to develop.
I think that programmes like the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund are very much needed, because they respond to a specific situation and help directly those who have suffered most from the effects of the crisis.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a tool that is now being increasingly used by the European Parliament due to the difficult stage of economic convergence our continent is experiencing.
This shows that, in the face of the crisis, the European Parliament has been able to adopt political measures to benefit the citizens we represent through a synergy of wide-ranging political objectives. For this reason, I voted in favour of this Fund in the certainty that it will constitute a fundamental tool of professional and hence social integration for workers who have lost their jobs.
Sweden has applied for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in respect of redundancies within the automotive sector in Sweden.
We are convinced that free trade and the market economy benefit economic development and we are therefore, in principle, opposed to financial assistance for countries or regions. However, this economic crisis has been deeper than any crisis that Europe has experienced since the 1930s and has hit car manufacturers in Sweden, and Volvo Cars in particular, especially hard.
The redundancies made by Volvo Cars are considered by the Commission to have a 'significant negative effect on the local and regional economy' in western Sweden. Volvo Cars is a very important employer in western Sweden. If the European Parliament does not take action, workers at Volvo Cars and its suppliers will be badly affected. The risk of social marginalisation and permanent exclusion is very great, which is something that, as Liberals, we cannot accept. We strongly sympathise with all those affected by unemployment and would very much like to see training made available for them.
Sweden is a net contributor to the EU and it is therefore important that employees in firms operating in Sweden also receive assistance from the EU if they are affected by the economic crisis.
I abstained from the vote on further mobilisation of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund.
The vote concerns, among other things, two payments of almost EUR 24 million in total to the car industry in Sweden and Austria. Another request concerns a construction company in the Netherlands.
The car industry is the main beneficiary of this fund, even though it is constantly closing factories, relocating its production, laying off a substantial amount of its workforce and placing its subcontractors in a vulnerable position. In addition, it has received other types of financial aid from the Member States within the context of economic recovery plans, as well as other forms of support granted specifically in connection with the policies to combat climate change.
These funds, which are intended to be used to train people who have been made redundant - a necessary measure if they are to find a new job - are not being granted in return for a commitment by the European car industry not to lay off any more of its workers.
There is no question of my supporting a policy such as this, since it actually endorses relocations.
This amending budget clearly reflects the contradictions in the European Union's budgets. On one hand, its global values are low in comparison with the needs of the economic and social cohesion policies. On the other hand, the funds have not been spent, because the countries that were most in need of that money found it difficult to budget for the required cofinancing.
Yet they rejected the proposals we tabled for reducing the cofinancing requirements, especially at a time of crisis. Such contradictions and irrationalities of Community policy only favour the richest and most developed countries and end up exacerbating social inequalities and regional disparities. That is why we voted against it.
The report itself justifies our position when it stresses that 'there are different reasons for the apparent slow-down in payments compared to the expected rhythm depending on the Member State concerned. Firstly, the current economic situation has, in some cases, caused difficulties for the provision of national cofinancing. Secondly, the fact that Rural Development implementation in 2009 shows a less dynamic profile than the relevant year of the previous programming period is explained by the late approval of certain programmes as well as, in the case of Romania and Bulgaria, a lack of sufficient previous experience in the implementation of Rural Development programmes.'
I voted against the motion, because overall, it promotes the liberalisation of markets and a trade system which is solely to the detriment of poor and developing countries and shows no real concern for the environmental needs of the planet. I consider that the liberalisation of trade and its catastrophic results, which have contributed to the current financial, economic, climate and food crisis, and to job losses, poverty and deindustrialisation, should be rejected. I also voted against the motion because it does not safeguard full respect for the rights of governments to protect their ability to regulate and provide fundamental services, especially in the field of public goods and services such as health, education, culture, communications, transport, water and energy.
Unfortunately, amendments tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left were rejected. We shall fight for genuine reform of the international trade system orientated towards the introduction of rules for fair trade which comply with international rules in the field of social justice, respect for the environment, food sovereignty and security, sustainable agriculture, viable growth and cultural diversity.
I voted against the joint motion for a resolution on the prospects for the Doha Development Agenda following the Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference. I did so from a general perspective because it clearly lacks vision in terms of promoting development and respect for developing countries, but more specifically because, while it is vital to successfully conclude the Doha Round, this cannot be done at any price. International trade must take account of Europe's longstanding tradition of cooperating with the poorest countries. Moreover, on the subject of agriculture and the liberalisation of services, I do not support the approach recommended by this resolution, all the more so since not all of the amendments that were designed to balance the text have been accepted. For example, agreeing to step up the negotiations in the services sector (in order to achieve a greater degree of liberalisation) is out of the question.
Lastly, I regret that the resolution has endorsed the strengthening of bilateral free trade agreements. This type of agreement is often far more unfavourable to developing countries. Having to face the EU on their own, they have a far weaker negotiating position and tend to be backed into a corner.
In my view, the Doha Round is fundamentally important for international trade and may greatly help to reduce poverty in developing countries and to share out the benefits of globalisation more fairly. It is therefore important that the Doha Development Agenda take account of that effect and make a real contribution to meeting the Millennium Goals.
It is vital for WTO members to continue to avoid adopting protectionist measures, which could have an extremely onerous impact on the world economy. I am convinced that not adopting protectionist measures has led to a better, albeit slow, recovery from the economic crisis we are currently experiencing.
It is therefore crucial for WTO members to fight protectionism in their bilateral and multilateral relations in future agreements.
I am in favour of the European Union playing a leading role in the current WTO negotiations, so as to conclude the Doha Round while bearing in mind the new global challenges, such as climate change, security and food sovereignty. I hope that the outcome will result in new market opportunities and a strengthening of the rules on multilateral trade, so as to place trade at the service of sustainable development. The WTO could manage globalisation better. I recognise, however, that in the context of the current economic crisis, the rules and commitments adopted within the WTO have largely prevented its members from turning to restrictive trade measures and have led them to adopt economic recovery measures.
WTO members must remain committed to actively fighting protectionism. I hope greater cooperation will be achieved between the WTO and other international organisations and bodies, such as the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). I therefore voted in favour.
This resolution stresses Parliament's neoliberal positions on the Doha Round, which began in 2001, albeit with an occasional reference to social issues and the Millennium Development Goals.
Its main thrust, however, is the emphasis on total liberalisation of the world market. It refuses to accept that it is time to change priorities in international trade and to reject free trade on the grounds of the negative contribution it has made to the financial, economic, food and social crisis that people are now experiencing, with growing unemployment and poverty. Free trade only serves the interests of the richest countries and the main economic and financial groups.
By rejecting our proposed amendments, they said no to a sea change in the negotiations, which would have prioritised development and social advancement, the creation of jobs with rights, and the fight against hunger and poverty. It is deplorable that they did not consider it a top priority to abolish tax havens, promote food sovereignty and security, support quality public services and respect governments' right to preserve their economies and public services, particularly in the areas of health, education, water, culture, communications and energy.
No, global free trade is not a solution to the current crisis. On the contrary, it is one of its main causes. The Doha Round negotiations have faltered from the start and have been at a standstill for a year because of a fundamental problem, namely, the system has reached its tolerable limits for everyone - be they developed, emerging or least developed, which is the international jargon for those countries that are poverty stricken and forced to integrate into an ultra-competitive global market that swallows them up. In Europe, we live according to the paradox perpetuated by the pseudo-elites who govern us and who want us all to be rich and poor at the same time: poor, because we have to be underpaid to compete in the trade war that pits us against countries with low levels of pay, and rich, so that we can consume the cheap and often low-quality imports that are flooding our markets.
It was some decades ago that a French winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics came up with the obvious solution: free trade is possible and desirable only between countries or entities that have the same level of development. That way, it is mutually beneficial to the partners involved. For all the rest, trade must be regulated, whether the prophets of ultra-liberalism like it or not.
I hope that the Doha Development Round will lead to our establishing fair and equitable trade relations. That is why I have endorsed the amendments by my political group, which are aimed at improving this resolution in order to strengthen the demands relating to development; to request that public services not be called into question in the negotiations on services; to request, in relation to industrial tariffs, that the need to take account of each country's development level and not to suddenly open these sectors up to competition be recognised; and, lastly, that special and differential treatment for certain types of production in the agricultural sector be preserved.
The various imbalances in the system of international trade unfairly help to accentuate the asymmetries between the continents. In this respect, anything that helps correct the current imbalances is of benefit to everyone and certainly contributes to creating a multilateral system based on fairer and more equitable rules. That will give us a fair trading system of service to everyone. That is the spirit of the Doha Development Programme.
After 30 years of free market fundamentalism, the global economy is facing the worst crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The neoliberal agenda of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), involving deregulation, liberalisation and privatisation of services, has brought further poverty for the majority of the world's population, both in developing and industrialised countries. My group has always rejected trade liberalisation and its devastating effects, which are contributing to the current financial, economic, climatic and food crisis.
For these reasons, I have voted against the Parliament resolution on the WTO ministerial conference and my Group has proposed that a new mandate should be demanded for WTO negotiations. Such a mandate must be adapted to the current state of the world. It must aim at achieving real reform of the international trade system and ensuring the adoption of fair trade regulations that respect international agreements and national regulations in the areas of social justice, the environment, food sovereignty and sustainable agriculture.
The joint motion for a resolution from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), the European Conservatives and Reformists and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe on the Doha Development Agenda and the WTO continues the trend of global liberalisation in all economic areas. There is no doubt that breaking down barriers to trade and increasing trade in some areas brings greater prosperity. We have also seen that free trade, in particular, between similarly developed countries, is also beneficial.
However, if the trading partners are too different in terms of their stage of development, there are, in many cases, negative effects for both parties. The complete opening up of the markets of the developing countries to exports from industrialised countries has sometimes resulted in the destruction of the local economic structure, an increased level of poverty for the people and, as a consequence, more people wanting to migrate to Western countries. On the other hand, Europe has been inundated with cheap goods from the Far East, the manufacture of which has, in many cases, involved the exploitation of workers. Domestic production has been relocated or shut down, which has resulted in unemployment in Europe. From this point of view, therefore, certain barriers to trade, for example, to maintain food sovereignty in Europe, make perfect sense. It should not be forgotten that the liberalisation of services on the financial markets played a huge part in the current financial and economic crisis. Nevertheless, the motion for a resolution speaks in favour of continuing the process of liberalisation and of giving the WTO a greater role as part of a new global order policy and, for this reason, I voted against it.
I have today voted against the resolution on the Doha Development Agenda because I am opposed to any kind of liberalisation of public services. I am thinking in particular of the liberalisation of the water supply, health services and services in the energy sector. For the cohesion of society, it is essential that all citizens have access to public services. These services must be provided to a high quality, with respect for the principle of universality and, above all, they must be affordable. In this regard, the national authorities should have a great deal of discretionary power and broad opportunities to shape their services.
In this era of globalisation, an effective system for regulating trade is more relevant than ever. This is the role of the World Trade Organisation, which was created in 1995 to replace GATT. As is emphasised in the joint motion for a resolution tabled by the right of Parliament, which I voted for this lunchtime, the WTO has an essential role to play in ensuring that globalisation is managed better and that its benefits are distributed more evenly. Clearly, those who are in favour of protectionism, of turning in on ourselves, are picking the wrong target when they make the WTO the deadly weapon of uncontrolled liberalisation. It was the current Director-General of this United Nations body, Pascal Lamy, who indicated the path to follow in 1999: that, conversely, of controlled globalisation.
In order to follow this path, the European Parliament proposes some practical solutions: completely tax-free and quota-free access to the market for the least developed countries, a successful outcome to the Doha Round for developing countries, demands in terms of environmental and social standards, and a Commission-controlled mandate for agricultural matters. In proposing these solutions, we are also pointing out that the European Union must give priority to its political objectives, and not just focus on trade objectives.
It is with pleasure that I welcome the resolution about the WTO, because it is an exceptionally important problem at the present time. The crisis is global in nature, and getting out of it as quickly as possible is in the interests of all of us. I think one way of effectively limiting the crisis is to expand world trade. Restricting the reform of economies to a regional or national level is easier, but in the long run, it is not a good way to fight the crisis, which is global in extent, and fighting it requires common instruments used on a world scale. Therefore, we should do everything to speed up negotiations within the framework of the World Trade Organisation because these negotiations are liberalising trade. At the same time, we must adopt sound principles of competitiveness. In these principles, product quality standards and conditions of production are especially important, including in the context of fighting climate change and reducing CO2 emissions. Highly sensitive goods, such as agricultural and food products, require an exceptionally sound approach. In the future, we should think about whether, along with liberalisation of trade in agricultural goods within the framework of the WTO on a world level, we should not also introduce standardisation of some elements of agricultural policy at world level. The specific nature of the agricultural sector should be taken into account - its dependence on climatic conditions, questions of quality related to food security, conditions of production and the problem of safeguarding the world's food supply. In the WTO negotiations, we need to show greater understanding of others and more goodwill.
I voted against the motion, because it is predicated entirely on the doctrine and policy of the 'war against terror', which is still being used to justify restrictions on rights and freedoms and to legalise military intervention and actions introduced under the Lisbon Treaty. Also, the European Parliament has ultimately been excluded from colegislation, examination and control of measures relating to individual rights and anti-terrorist policies, thereby weakening its role on crucial issues. Finally, I would emphasise that, apart from anything else, unfortunately an amendment was passed distorting the role of NGOs, converting them into information providers and a vehicle of the various 'anti-terrorist' security services, instead of helpers in the societies in which they are active.
Public access to documents is an essential factor in ensuring that there is democratic control of the institutions and that they operate effectively, thus increasing citizens' trust. In the framework of the Stockholm Programme, the Council reaffirmed the importance of transparency and invited the Commission to examine the best way to ensure transparency in the decision-making process, document access and good governance, in view of the new opportunities offered by the Treaty of Lisbon. I am in no doubt that the legal basis for the regulation applicable to document access needs changing, as does the legal context in which it should operate, particularly with regard to the relation between the Union's institutions and the citizens.
Improvements are also needed in substantive terms, as, for example, in something I regard as fundamental, which is Parliament's ability to exercise its right to democratic control through access to sensitive documents. Transparency, whether in relation to the public or in interinstitutional terms, is a fundamental principle of the EU. The actions and decisions taken by all the EU's institutions, bodies, services and agencies must be guided by the fullest possible compliance with the principle of openness.
The issue under consideration concerns the Treaty of Lisbon, in particular, how to reconcile its Articles 75 and 215 with regard to Parliament's competence in the procedure for adopting restrictive measures against certain persons and entities.
Whereas Article 215 seems to exclude Parliament from the decision-making process, Article 75 lays down the ordinary legislative procedure and hence this House's participation in defining and adopting measures to prevent terrorism and associated activities.
Since the rationale behind the restrictive measures provided for in Article 215 is often precisely the fight against terrorism, it is important to determine whether this is an exception to Article 75 and, if so, whether it is acceptable for Parliament to be systematically excluded from the procedure to adopt them.
I believe it is clear that the legislator intended to entrust adoption of such measures exclusively to the Council. That move may be based on grounds of swiftness and unity in decision making. Nonetheless, in any non-urgent situation, I believe there would be an advantage in consulting Parliament when such measures are to be adopted.
The fight against terrorism is once again being used as an excuse to provide for restrictive measures and sanctions against governments of third states, natural or legal persons, groups or non-state entities. That is unacceptable, because the report itself acknowledges that in practice, it is difficult to distinguish between types of threats, even though it makes some attempts to do so.
We realise that another framework of compliance with international law is needed. We do not accept the policy of double standards in relation to governments of third states, natural or legal persons, groups or non-state entities, assessed according to the interests of the United States or the major European powers. There is no lack of examples. To mention just a few, we have the cases of the illegal occupation of Western Sahara, Aminatou Haidar and other Sahrawis detained in Morocco, and Turkey's actions against the Kurds and against Cyprus.
We therefore voted against this report, even though we agree with some paragraphs in it, particularly where it asks for clarification from the Commission.
This Parliament's resolution constantly wavers between the need to take certain measures against terrorist organisations and states that support them, such as freezing their assets or imposing diplomatic and economic sanctions, and so on, and respect for the rights of individuals and organisations to defend themselves against such accusations and sanctions.
Clearly, this Parliament has chosen to prioritise the rights of suspects over the defence of the nations. If, however, democracies cannot, in fact, combat terrorism by denying their own values, then they cannot allow themselves to give the impression of being lax or weak, either. I fear that this is exactly the impression that this resolution is giving. That is why, the institutional aspects aside, we voted against.
I voted in favour of this resolution because it is important for we MEPs to exercise our parliamentary control over decisions to impose sanctions against persons associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as persons who threaten the rule of law in Zimbabwe and Somalia. The chosen legal basis is unacceptable; we ask to be consulted under the ordinary legislative procedure and to be kept informed of developments in the work of the UN Sanctions Committee. Lastly, on this matter, I regret the highly administrative approach that the Council is maintaining even though we are talking here about measures relating to individual rights.
in writing. - The ECR Group are the strongest supporters of measures against terrorists in the EU and especially believe that national governments within the European Union must work together to tackle the constant threat from terrorism. The ECR Group have nevertheless decided to abstain on this resolution for two specific reasons: First, we oppose any legislation moving us towards a common European foreign and security policy but secondly, we instead want to see improved and strengthened coordination and cooperation between the EU and national governments, and are very disappointed that this resolution did not sufficiently reflect that.
The common sense behind the questions that have been asked goes beyond a mere evaluation of doctrine and the consistency between declared intentions and their interpretation. There is also a practical consequence, which arises from the old saying that he who can do the greater can certainly do the lesser, and it concerns the following: what sense is there for a body that has competence in criminal matters and in preventing and combating terrorist attacks, through being involved in a codecision process, to be subsequently excluded a priori when other measures are at stake which, by affecting citizens' rights, may even be important in this context as well?
It is fundamentally important that the way the Treaty of Lisbon is interpreted in legislation corresponds in reality to the stated strengthening of Parliament's powers and competences. At the very least, in some cases, as was raised in the question, it should be possible to have a dual legal basis when the rights of citizens are at stake and anti-terrorism policies are threatened. In other cases, such as Zimbabwe and Somalia, optional consultation should be envisaged, as in fact is enshrined in the Stuttgart Declaration on the European Union, which was also mentioned in the question.
In recent years, more and more liberties have been curtailed in the name of combating terror. With the SWIFT Agreement and the Stockholm Programme, in particular, the 'transparent person' is becoming ever more a reality. Of course, in a time of modern technology, globalisation and a borderless EU, it is important for the authorities to work together and also to prepare themselves accordingly. However, the state must not sink to the level of the terrorists. We only have to think of the questionable role of the EU and individual Member States in connection with CIA overflights and secret US prisons.
The monitoring of legality is an important counterweight to ensure that an accused is afforded the minimum rights according to the requirements of a modern democracy. The report in question is not clear enough in terms of its approach and also says too little about past failures and data protection issues. I have therefore abstained from the vote.


6. List of third States and organisations for Europol agreements (


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting opened at 09.00.)