6. Interim Partnership Agreement between the EC and the Pacific States (


Referendum in Venezuela (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the referendum in Venezuela.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the National Electoral Council has announced that a popular referendum on the proposal for constitutional reform made by the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the National Assembly will be held on 2 December 2007. On that day, the people of Venezuela will have the opportunity to exercise their democratic right of decision on the proposed changes that would shape important aspects of the political, institutional, economic and social life of that country.
The Commission is closely following the ongoing constitutional reform process in Venezuela, as well as in other countries in the region. It stresses the importance it attaches to the fact that each new constitution or constitutional reform should reinforce democracy and the rule of law. It also believes that each constitution should be based on a broad popular consensus and adequately reflect the plurality and diversity of each nation. Constitutions should unite people and not divide them.
The Commission is following with interest the intensive debate on constitutional reform in Venezuela. It has observed that some sectors of Venezuelan society are in favour of the proposed changes, but also takes note of the strong opposition to the reform expressed by other sectors. Those sectors are voicing concerns, notably on aspects of the reform which they consider would - if the reform were approved - entail an increased concentration of powers in the hands of the President, a weakening of democratic control mechanisms and of the existing institutions and a threat to democratic pluralism. Others consider that what is proposed goes beyond a mere reform and implies modification of the fundamental structure of the state.
The Commission is aware of the situation and is paying due attention to it. While it considers that it is the people of Venezuela who should themselves pronounce on the reform proposal, it also stresses the importance it attaches to the campaign on the reform being conducted in an open manner and in a spirit of mutual respect. It also expresses the hope that the referendum will take place in a peaceful atmosphere and in a transparent manner.
In that context, it is worth noting that the recent electoral observation mission sent by the European Union to the last presidential election in Venezuela considered that the electoral process in general complied with international standards and national legislation and underlined the peaceful environment in which the elections were held.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Madam President, the American continent as a whole is the closest to Europe in terms of values, ideals, vision of the world and individuals, their dignity and their rights. What we call the West to my mind clearly includes Latin America.
In recent years there have been some positive trends in Latin America as a whole, bringing it ever closer to Europe: pluralist elections and democratic consolidation, growth with more balanced and open economic policies, regional integration processes and very important agreements with the European Union.
However, there are exceptions in this positive panorama: in addition to the traditional one of Cuba, that of Venezuela is now emerging. This country is going through a process of increasing authoritarianism in which freedoms are being restricted, the opposition is being harassed and fear is being created among the people who even suspect that their vote is no longer secret. In this House we regret the closure last May of Radio Caracas Televisión.
On Sunday a constitutional referendum will hurriedly be held which aims to introduce an authoritarian and exclusive regime and which proposes to establish what is being termed 'Socialism for the 21st century'. An until recently very close associate of President Chávez has even termed the process a 'coup'. I regret that an election observation mission from the European Union has not been officially invited.
What is more, this referendum is being held in a climate of violence and tension which has even cost the lives of students who also reject the plan. In recent years, physical and legal insecurity, kidnaps and land occupations have also increased. As a result, for example, many of my Galician compatriots have left the country at the average rate of one thousand people per year since President Chávez came to power.
Emboldened by high oil prices, President Chávez is looking for followers and allies in other countries, he is making a lot of noise in international forums and he is intervening in the sovereign affairs of his neighbours. As President Uribe has said, President Chávez wants to set the continent alight. His attitude is a problem for the democratic stability of Venezuela and for harmony and integration processes in Latin America as a whole. He is also disrupting the relations which have been expanding in the last decade between countries on that continent and the European Union.
Bearing in mind the next Lima Summit, the attitude of President Chávez represents a serious challenge which must be carefully considered by the European Union and its Member States.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Madam President, the first thing we have to do in this Parliament, in line with its own tradition of respect and non-interference, is not inflame the situation further, either in continents or third countries, as a result of our own words.
Mr Millán Mon is right to say that Latin America has developed very positively in recent years, both politically - as the vast majority of its countries are democratic - and economically, and also, albeit more modestly, in social terms.
Europe has contributed extensively to this development, through its companies, its investments and particularly its development aid which is the highest in that continent.
In this general context, I would not say that there is an exception, but rather that there is a particular situation in Venezuela due to the personality, which is also very particular and very much his own, of President Chávez. However, it must not be forgotten - especially not in a democratic institution such as this one - that President Chávez has been re-elected three times with large majorities and without any justified suspicions of electoral fraud.
Under these circumstances - that is to say, we are not talking about a dictatorship - we must tread carefully, try to increase dialogue by extending the hand of friendship and also encourage this country, which admittedly is fractured and divided, to engage in internal dialogue, consensus and reconciliation. We must do this in the belief that a country cannot be transformed with a majority of just 60% or 40% and that the rules of the game cannot be changed without a broad consensus involving at least 70% or 80%, as has occurred in other countries around us and in our old continent, in the European Union.
Admittedly, the internal situation is very worrying for the reasons that I have set out: the drift or the suspicion of a drift towards authoritarianism; the concentration of power; the successive loss of the division of powers, and also the reduction in freedom of expression using an instrument barely known in Europe which is termed 'en cadena'. This allows the President or one of his ministers to commandeer, at any time, all the television channels and all the radio transmitters so that the President's messages can be broadcast. These do not just last a minute or two. In fact, in exceptional cases, they can go on for several hours a day. In a country where few newspapers are read and where television and radio are the main media, this is a problematic situation.
However, I insist - and I will end on this point - that, faced with this referendum, we must be cautious, offer dialogue, hold out the hand of friendship and try to mediate between the two opposing sides in Venezuela.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, Venezuela is a country of exceptional natural beauty and is very rich in natural resources. It has some of the world's largest deposits of oil, coal, iron and gold. Despite its natural riches, the majority of Venezuelans have remained very poor, with far too many living in conditions of appalling poverty. Only a small minority belonging to a rich elite have benefited from the country's riches.
Under those conditions of gross social inequality, it is no wonder that populist politicians like Hugo Chávez have emerged as saviours of the poor. It is also no wonder that Mr Chávez's nationalisation programme was welcomed by most Venezuelans. They saw Hugo Chávez as someone who was going to lift them out of the misery of poverty and deprivation.
The same thinking applies to the forthcoming constitutional reform referendum. I am sure that referendum will secure the necessary popular approval, and it is too late now for public opinion to be changed. Therefore, what we will in essence have after 2 December is the emergence of another Fidel Castro. It seems that, just as one totalitarian leader is fading away in Cuba, another is being born in Venezuela. However, in diagnosing that sad reality, we should, perhaps, also ask whether we in the West are in any way to blame for how things are turning out in Venezuela.
We must do this not just so that we can be morally and politically correct academically, but also so that we can, in practice, prevent similar occurrences in the future. Sadly, it is apparent that, in our dealings, with Venezuela over the last few years, we have made numerous grave mistakes. Hugo Chávez got to where he is today partly because we have helped him through our foreign policy omissions and commissions. Therefore, in contemplating our strategy on how to deal with him in the future, let us start by saying 'sorry' to the Venezuelan people.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) I am speaking as Chairman of the Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community. As such, I have been visiting Venezuela one or more times a year.
Since I started going to this country, in other words since the military coup against President Chávez, I have been hearing the Venezuelan media screaming against the President, against the dictatorship. In the hotels I used, even though they had three, four or even five stars, you were not allowed to watch public television, and anyway it is not always possible to do so as it is normally broadcast in a snowy format. The generals behind the coup still stroll around the largest square in Caracas and President Chávez, legally elected, re-elected and re-elected again, has never lifted a finger against them.
Venezuela is one of the countries trying to deal, as peacefully as possible, with the conflicts which are commonplace all over Latin America. I am not wholly enamoured with all the changes that President Chávez has tried to make to the Bolivarian Constitution. Having said that, as Mr Matsakis stated, it is the people of Venezuela who will decide.
We can certainly make excuses for the way in which we gave the impression that we supported the military coup. It is true that this has helped radicalise the regime in Venezuela. I feel, however, that, first and foremost and above all, we ought to respect the decision of the Venezuelan people.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (ES) Madam President, I would ask the European right to stop meddling in Venezuela.
The European right does not like Cuba because it says that there are no elections, and yet it does not like Venezuela because there are. In fact, Venezuela is one of the countries in Latin America that has held the most elections, all supervised by the Organization of American States, by the European Union and by foundations as prestigious as the Carter Center.
Ladies and gentlemen of the right, what you do not like is the system. Stop meddling and respect a sovereign people who are freely exercising their will and who will keep doing so. We should not anticipate events. Have we not agreed in the European Union, as Commissioner Dimas has said, that the recent presidential elections were held totally fairly?
We must wait and see and respect what the people of Venezuela say without any kind of interference, ladies and gentlemen of the right.
(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in 1848 Karl Marx proclaimed Socialism for the 19th century, and it was a disaster. In 1917 Lenin, with the Russian Revolution, proclaimed Socialism for the 20th century, and it was a disaster. Various Members of this House emerged from that disaster to join us in freedom. The problem with Socialism for the 21st century, as proclaimed by President Chávez in Venezuela, is that this century is only just beginning and we do not know what will happen. However, we can imagine that, as in the 19th and 20th centuries, it will also be a disaster.
As a matter of fact, we see it resulting in violence. It is not the elections that concern us; it is the brutal violence perpetrated by the authorities against the students protesting in Venezuela because they are not recognised as having the right to demonstrate. Some of these students have died in recent days on the streets of Caracas and other cities. It is the threats to freedom of expression that concern independent and free journalists throughout Latin America and in particular in Venezuela and which led to the closure of Radio Caracas Televisión.
This is the line that concerns us, and we are right to be concerned as, in the constitutional reform proposed by President Chávez, words such as 'decentralisation', 'private initiative', 'freedom of competition' and 'social justice' have given way to words such as 'Socialism', 'Socialist', 'imposition of the Socialist State', 'elimination of the independence of the Central Bank' and 'people's power'. It is well-known throughout the world that, when someone uses the expression 'people's power', power will be taken away from the people and democracy will be destroyed. This has happened everywhere that the expression 'people's power' has been used. 'Bolivarian Armed Forces', 'communes', this is the kind of line that should concern us, that has sown instability and violence in recent months and years on the streets of Caracas and that also represents a threat to regional stability if what has recently happened in relations between Venezuela and Colombia should continue. That is why it is essential that we closely monitor events in Venezuela in solidarity with the democratic parties and civil society fighting for regional stability and firmly defending democracy, but also with great cohesion in the European Union's diplomacy.
(SL) Today we signed the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, thereby expressing our commitment to respect for human dignity, democratic values and the rule of law. What has been the basis for the successful growth of the European Union internally is also our starting point for developing relations with our partners throughout the world.
The European Union as a whole wants closer and stable cooperation with the countries of Latin America and its regional interconnections. In view of the specific nature and genuine interests of the countries of Latin America we believe that it is possible to build strategic and long-term relations only in this manner and with those countries with which we can share the same fundamental values and principles.
Political development in Venezuela has recently deviated from the abovementioned course. It is thereby undermining the dynamics and scope of future cooperation between Latin America and the European Union and the dynamics of integration within Latin America itself. The referendum on the constitution is polarising Venezuela because the new proposals concentrate political power and will not lead to an open, ideological and democratic society. We believe in social society, not socialist society, because that dismisses those who think differently.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (PT) Unbelievable! The European Parliament has put on the agenda a Commission statement on the constitutional reform planned for 2 December in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela when what should be on the agenda is a debate on the current attempt to deny all the people of the EU Member States the right to be consulted, by way of a referendum, on the so-called 'constitutional', 'mini', 'simplified', 'reform' or now 'Lisbon' Treaty.
In essence, putting this debate on the agenda is an attempt to respond to those who support and promote an unacceptable and extremely serious policy of interference in and attempted destabilisation of a sovereign state, particularly when this is a process that only the Venezuelan people can decide, by giving their opinion through a referendum (!) on the amendment of their country's Constitution.
Without doubt the Venezuelan Government and people are an example which worries the major financial and economic interests established in the European Union: an example of the assertion of national sovereignty and independence; an example of the realisation of a plan for patriotic emancipation and development; an example of international and anti-imperialist solidarity; an example of what it is worth fighting for and that it is possible to have a fairer, more democratic and peaceful country and world.


4. The attack on Galina Kozlova, member of the board of the Mari national organisation Mari Ušem and editor of the literary magazine Ontšõko (vote)
That concludes the vote.


2. Kidnapping in Gaza of the journalist Alan Johnston
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the kidnapping in Gaza of the journalist Alan Johnston.
author. - Madam President, with your agreement I should like to begin by saying that last week over one thousand BBC staff, friends and colleagues of Alan Johnston gathered at vigils for him at BBC buildings across the world. I should like to welcome the BBC staff working here in Strasbourg who, in tribute to their missing colleague, are in the public gallery today to listen to our debate.
(Applause)
When a kidnapping takes place anywhere in the world, the victim's friends and family always look to the media to keep the fate of their loved one in the eye of the public and of us as politicians. When the kidnapped person is himself a journalist, it is our responsibility to cherish their fate as they cherish others'.
Such is the case with BBC journalist Alan Johnston, abducted in Gaza 46 days ago. Alan's career personally symbolises the outstanding reputation of the BBC for integrity and objectivity. Having previously worked in Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, Alan is passionate about his reporting on the Palestinian people, with whom he has a close connection and for whom he has deep respect. This has resonated among his audience, 50 000 of whom have this week signed the online petition asking for his release.
Our first thoughts are, of course, with Graham and Margaret Johnston and with the other members of his family, to whom we send our sympathy and support.
I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of all the BBC management and staff and to journalists, trade unions in Britain and worldwide who have led the campaign for Alan's release.
One of the colleagues here today told me that Alan is known quite simply as someone who brings stories to life. Today his life is our story. Alan Johnston's courageous presence, as the only permanently-based Western journalist in Gaza, has precisely enabled him to report the suffering of the Palestinian people, and now he has become the ultimate case of a journalist caught up in his own story - a victim of the suffering itself.
We are told that Alan remains alive and secure, but not who is holding him. We can speculate whether his abduction was for reasons of politics, money or recognition, but we do not know which, if any. We can recognise that to prevent what has happened to Alan from happening to others requires a political understanding and solution.
However, today our response is not political - it is humanitarian, to say to whoever is listening: release Alan Johnston without harm and without hindrance. The European Parliament should welcome the assurances of help made by Europe's Foreign Ministers this week and of 'permanent contact' promised by our own High Representative. We are sure you will act on these promises. I understand too that Commissioner Almunia, responding to today's debate, will pledge that his colleague Mr Michel will this weekend press Alan Johnston's case with President Abbas and representatives of the Palestinian Authority. We thank you.
The European Parliament acknowledges the support and cooperation of the Palestinian Authority and we are proud of Europe's support to sustain your staff and the vital services they provide, but it is your intelligence services who have been able to make contact with those who have abducted Alan, and it is in you that we place our hopes for a breakthrough.
In radio circles, they say that the biggest crime is to say nothing into the microphone. Alan Johnston's kidnapping is the radio silence that now must come to an end.
(Applause)
author. - (PL) Madam President, there are reporters who carry out their duties to a more or less satisfactory extent, just as there are better and worse media. Alan Johnston was a good journalist, working for a well-known, popular and respected medium, namely the BBC. Alan Johnston was kidnapped, in spite or because of the fact that he specifically wanted to work for and among the people of the Middle East, an area currently facing crisis. He worked for these people as he informed the world of their situation and, by providing us with information, allowed us politicians to also attempt to resolve the crisis, a crisis over which we sadly have very little influence.
Madam President, kidnappings, terrorism and murder are sadly all phenomena that are part of today's world, a world where there are no principles left, not even - if one may describe it thus - the principles of warfare. These wars are being fought in the most base manner. Alan Johnston fell victim to this phenomenon. To a certain extent, we are all victims. I hope that the relevant authorities will do everything possible to free Alan Johnston.
author. - Madam President, there is no doubt that Palestinians in Gaza are suffering greatly through the gross violation of their human rights by the dreadful siege situation imposed on them by the aggressive Israeli Government actions and the tolerance shown for such actions by Western governments.
At the same time, there is no doubt that the daily plight of the Palestinian people is brought to public attention worldwide through the work of journalists. These journalists risk their lives in order to serve the cause of freedom of information and consequently assist in promoting the Palestinian people's fight for justice. The kidnapping of journalists such as Alan Johnston is, therefore, against the interests of the Palestinian people and is severely damaging their just demands. We call upon the Palestinian people to redouble their efforts to secure the release of Alan Johnston. We believe that in so doing they will be helping themselves most of all.
author. - (NL) Madam President, Gaza is a small, but very urbanised area, virtually cut off from the outside world. Opposition from the neighbouring Israel has meant that the port and airport that had been planned with EU funds have not come into being, any more than has the open link with the much larger part of the future Palestinian state along the river Jordan. Israel was, for a long time, a place that offered employment, but it has largely taken this option away for fear of attacks, and admits far fewer people into the country via the border post of Erez.
Israel also controls the border crossing with Egypt. In this isolated area, a large section of the Palestinian population live like sardines, with no job, with no income and with no adequate housing. The wise decision to remove the Israeli colonist villages from this coastal strip may have done something for those who had lived in them and who were hated by those around them, but hardly anything for anyone else there.
Gaza is a disaster area full of people without any future to look forward to, and that makes it a sort of prison or breeding ground for acts of despair. For a long time, these acts of despair mainly consisted of suicide attacks against Israeli targets, but they also include kidnappings. Alan Johnston is the fifteenth journalist to be kidnapped in Gaza and in the month following his kidnap, nothing was heard about him for a long time.
All Palestinian leaders, President Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and the PLO's imprisoned party leader, Marwan Barghouti, unanimously condemn heinous acts of this kind. A lack of convincing success stories on the path to a state of their own and to provisions and income for their people has meant that they are losing control over events. Without any prospects for the future, unknown criminals are taking over power. This does not do anything to make the situation in Palestine or Israel any better. Journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, are less and less able to follow events on the ground. This is why we must be vigilant, and this is why the kidnapped journalists must be freed.
author of the motion for a resolution. - (SV) Madam President, last year, journalists throughout the world suffered a record number of kidnappings and deaths. We now have a duty to ensure that that record is not beaten in 2007, and we have an obligation to help bring about the release of Alan Johnston.
My thoughts go out to his immediate and extended family and to his colleagues, and I have to say that I have high hopes of his being released. We know that Palestinian leaders condemn the kidnapping and that the kidnappers do not have the support of the Palestinian people. We know that they understand that Alan Johnston has done more than anyone to report on their suffering over a period of 16 years. Armed with these factors, we too can help bring about his release.
I have been in Gaza myself and know how difficult the situation is there. However, it is by ensuring the presence of as many journalists as possible there and making sure that as many journalists as possible write about what is happening that those in Gaza have the best chance of getting us all to help improve the situation of the people. Because the Palestinian people know that the kidnapping in question is contrary to their interests, I am certain that the kidnappers will not receive any support and that they will, in the end, have to release Alan Johnston.
author. - (EL) Madam President, allow me too to express my regret about this incident. Yet another journalist who had the courage to work in difficult and dangerous conditions has fallen victim to kidnappers, thereby also depriving us of the information which we politicians and international public opinion can get about the tragic conditions that prevail in the area.
I trust that the fact that this has galvanised public opinion and the political leadership in the Palestinian territories and the efficacy of the National Unity Government, which is becoming more visible day by day, will help to bring about the release of the journalist Alan Johnston, identify those responsible and apportion responsibility.
A mission of members, including me and some of my honourable friends present in the House, shall be going to the Palestinian territories next week. Within the framework of international conventions and our bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority, we shall convey our concern and exert all possible pressure - if the matter has not already been resolved - to get Alan Johnston released and to secure as many guarantees for the safety of local citizens and visitors to the area as possible.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I hope this debate and resolution will add, in some small way, to the international pressure to successfully achieve the release of Alan Johnston following his abduction two weeks ago.
We in this Parliament must speak out strongly to send a clear message of condemnation of the acts of violence that have taken place and the kidnapping of a man who has gained a reputation as one of the world's leading media broadcasters. He has built up a reputation over many years - but in particular during the last three years in Gaza - as a broadcaster who is objective and balanced in his reporting of a very difficult situation.
We call on everybody who has any influence or power over his captors to do all they can to secure his release. For the Palestinian people themselves, this crisis is adding to an already tragic situation. It is sending out a message to the rest of the world that not even experienced journalists are welcome or safe in Gaza.
This is a man who has been informing the rest of the world of the suffering, injustice and tragedy that continues there. Targeting him by kidnapping him is not only an appalling crime in itself, but it is self-defeating in terms of the Palestinian people's cause.
Gaza is isolated enough without cutting off accurate media reporting. We are calling on the Palestinian Authority in particular to work for his release as an absolute priority and on the Council and Commission to maximise their efforts to that end.
Finally, to Alan Johnston's family and friends, I express my sincere support on behalf of the PPE-DE Group in this Parliament. I hope that their ordeal will soon have a relieving and positive conclusion.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - I too would like to offer my support and that of the ALDE Group to Alan Johnston and his family.
I do not think any of us can imagine why he is being held. He is a man who has consistently spoken up for the Palestinian people. To kidnap someone like him is unbelievable. What do they hope to achieve? It certainly does nothing for the Palestinian cause, as many Palestinians themselves have pointed out. His only offence is his belief that the story of Gaza and its people should be told in a fair and balanced way, and he has being doing that in an exceptional manner for the last three years. He was the only foreign correspondent living permanently in the Gaza Strip.
We all hoped that he would have been released by now, as the 14 others kidnapped since 2005 were released, and we are today adding our voices to those calling for the Palestinian Authority to redouble its efforts to secure Alan Johnston's speedy release. We are also calling for all attacks on journalists to cease. What more can any of us say? I am sure that people across the EU are hoping and praying for his release. All we are doing today is trying to add our voices to those of his parents and his colleagues, and to say to his kidnappers: realise that if anything happens to him, you will have lost a strong voice telling your story to the world. All you will achieve is to isolate yourself and the Palestinian people further. That cannot be what you want. You want your voice to be heard, not to be further marginalised. These acts make it more difficult for those of us who have always supported the Palestinian cause to persuade people of the validity of the argument, and that is why it is completely self-defeating and betrays the Palestinian people, who continue to suffer.
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I have signed the MEPs' letter calling on the Palestinian authorities and other organisations immediately to channel all their efforts into securing the unconditional release of the BBC journalist.
We now urgently call on the Commission and the Council to do likewise and to impose sanctions if diplomatic negotiations fail. The kidnappers who have been holding the journalist for 46 days and President Abbas must know that they are holding back the whole of Palestine on its path to development and are consigning it to isolation.
I wish to emphasise that Alan Johnston's release is vital to the safety of all journalists working in the Middle East. I should like to express here in Parliament the esteem in which I hold Johnston's work over the past three years in Gaza and to applaud the heroism of the work of all his fellow journalists and their families in upholding journalistic freedom in areas of conflict around the world. They are an important source of hope for local populations facing appalling violence that could not be brought to justice without journalistic freedom.
Europe must do all it can to ensure the safety of journalists in this area.
Madam President, Alan Johnston has been a BBC journalist for 16 years and has worked in a variety of countries, including Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, so he has not exactly chosen a comfortable life! During his three years in Gaza he has taken a strong interest in social and political developments there and he has told the story of the people of Gaza. Therefore, as others have said, it very much harms the Palestinian cause for him not to be doing the job that he loves and does so well.
In 2005 and 2006 alone, 181 journalists and assistants were killed, 1678 arrested, 56 kidnapped and 2780 physically attacked or threatened. The year 2006 saw the highest death toll since 1994 when 103 died, in particular in Rwanda, Algeria and the former Yugoslavia. Censorship and media bans are, of course, widespread and persistent.
In this joint motion for a resolution we are calling on all EU bodies - Member State diplomats, the High Representative for CFSP and the Commission - to strengthen and coordinate their efforts to secure Mr Johnston's release. We are also calling on the Palestinian Authority to increase its efforts and it, no doubt, will give the matter all the greater priority if it is pressed by the Palestinian people. I thank all those in Gaza - journalists and citizens of all kinds - for their vocal demands for Alan Johnston's release. They know that they need a journalist of integrity and commitment to give them a window on the world.
Free democracies cannot flourish without press freedom. As we insist on Alan Johnston's safe return, we salute the courage of all journalists who put their safety on the line in order to bring the truth to the world and to allow us all to enjoy democracy.
Madam President, honourable Members, allow me, at this point, to make a brief comment on behalf of the Council and express how very depressing this topic is for all of us. The BBC correspondent, Alan Johnston, was abducted in Gaza on 12 March. A large amount of anxiety was prevalent at last Monday's Council of Foreign Ministers surrounding Mr Johnston, who has already been missing for six weeks. We call for his immediate and unconditional release.
Mr Johnston is an internationally respected journalist with many friends in Gaza. It has always been a matter of concern for him that the world should see with its own eyes how things stand there. His abduction is a criminal act which I can only condemn in the strongest possible terms. At this point, I would also like to extend my sympathy to his family, which is fighting on his behalf, and which has already been living in fear and uneasy uncertainty for more than one and a half months now.
(Applause)
Madam President, it has been more than six weeks since Alan Johnston was kidnapped, and the Commission has expressed its solidarity with his family, friends and colleagues at this very difficult time.
Margot Wallström, as Vice-President of the Commission, has made a public statement on the kidnapping of Mr Johnston on behalf of the whole College, expressing its deep concern over his plight and calling for his immediate release. This week, the kidnapping was condemned by the Council, which has called for Mr Johnston's unconditional release. Furthermore, yesterday, my colleague Louis Michel also raised the issue of the abduction of the BBC journalist during a meeting with the Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister, Mr al-Ahmad. He asked him to use all his influence and contacts and to do everything in his power to locate Mr Johnston. The Deputy Prime Minister assured Mr Michel that he would do all he could to secure a rapid release.
Commissioner Michel also repeated those requests in his meetings with other Palestinian interlocutors during his trip to the region. Intensive coordinated diplomatic efforts are under way for an immediate release of Mr Johnston. Our staff in Jerusalem are following developments closely and inform us that the Palestinian authorities, in cooperation with the security forces, are discussing all possible options with the UK Government, with a view to a successful outcome.
This remains a high priority for President Abbas, and we note the public statements that have also been made by Prime Minister Haniyeh, as well as by Mr Barghouti, on behalf of Palestinian prisoners, and by Palestinians around the world, condemning this kidnapping.
Clearly, the kidnapping of a prominent journalist like Alan Johnston, who has done so much to bring the situation of Palestinians to the world's attention, is particularly distressing. Those responsible for this abduction are doing a disservice to the cause of the Palestinian people and to the peace process in the Middle East.
(Applause)
Thank you for those statements.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.


Documents received: see Minutes


Announcement by the President
First of all, I would like to tell you about the difficult situation in Poland. In view of the dramatic flooding in Poland, where a significant amount of the country is flooded and people have lost all their possessions, I would like, on behalf of the European Parliament and all of us, to convey expressions of support and solidarity with the Poles and most sincere expressions of sympathy with those who are suffering, today.
(Applause)
There will be a debate on this at the next part-session of the European Parliament, on 16 June 2010. I am sure the European Union will show solidarity and respond positively to the request from the Polish authorities for financial support. We have our own European Union Solidarity Fund, which is so important in this kind of natural disaster.


Approval of the Minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


EU tomato imports from Morocco (Petition 1565/2009) (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on EU tomato imports from Morocco (Petition 1565/2009 by José Maria Pozancos (Spanish)), by Erminia Mazzoni, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions - B7-0211/2011).
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the question we submitted as the Committee on Petitions shows that our Committee was not satisfied with the answer that the Commission gave to the issue raised by the Spanish Federation of Associations of Producers and Exporters of Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers and Live Plants.
In fact, the Commission focused its attention on the responsibility of Member States in setting prices, without considering the specific point made by the petition, which was to report irregular imports of tomatoes and other vegetables from Morocco.
These alleged irregularities have, in fact, already been noted for some years by the regulatory body OLAF, which has pointed to the abusive application of the method for deduction provided for by Regulation (EC) No 3223/1994, which establishes three different methods of calculation. The consequences of this situation are lower revenues for the European Union, unfair competition and breach of market rules, as well as the gradual impoverishment of European producers and exporters, with seriously alarming situations reported, in particular, in Spain, Greece, Portugal, France and Italy.
The Commission is negotiating a new bilateral agreement with Morocco, and once again this agreement seems to not be taking these alarming facts into consideration, but to be continuing along the path towards implementation of a flow of exports from Morocco to the European Union which is totally unregulated and does not comply with European law.
I think this is a subject we should focus on. It is a subject which relates to and touches on a currently sensitive nerve, which is that of migration flows. In fact, this great mass of people coming from the countries along the North African coast, including Morocco, to the European Union often involves farm labourers, as the recent events in Rosarno show.
We are struggling to receive them. Above all, we are struggling as the European Union, and particularly as Italy, to offer them a livelihood. Further reducing the potential for agricultural production in our countries, and therefore in France, Spain, Italy and Portugal, which are having serious problems at the moment, would cause all kinds of damage. I would like to know what the Commission intends to do.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, if you will allow me, I will try to answer several questions that were raised in this petition. I would like to thank Mrs Mazzoni for bringing up this question so we can clarify our position on this matter.
First, I would like to assure the House that the Commission monitors the quantity of tomatoes imported from Morocco closely, attentively, using a cross-checking system based on designation of quantities imported by Moroccan operators and daily import records kept by national customs authorities. The Commission, until today, does not have any proof of systemic fraud or systemic failure of the system that was put in place. We have the information concerning one case, to which I will come back a little later. This is related to the year 2007, when OLAF indeed emphasised that the system as it stands at present could result in opportunistic behaviour but not necessarily involving irregular behaviour.
It is recalled that the application of the entry price system and the levying of possible import duties in connection with this mechanism are the exclusive competence of the customs authorities of the Member States.
Another aspect to this question, which is quite important, is the international context of this matter, something that is really dominated by the Doha Round, which has not yet been completed. Any change to the entry price system and its current application mechanism could have a detrimental impact on the results achieved so far. The new bilateral agreement with Morocco preserves the interests of the European producers by maintaining the system of monthly tariff quotas of tomatoes and strict control of the quantities imported.
In addition, the agreement provides for improved cooperation and greater transparency in terms of market data in the fruit and vegetable sector. The quantitative increase in the tomatoes quota has been limited to 52 000 tonnes, which is well below traditional trade levels, and the increase is progressive and staggered over four marketing years, thereby preserving current market shares and the traditional supply to the European Union. The Commission therefore considers that any change to the current entry price system must respect the terms of the relevant international agreements.
The Commission ensures that the regulation is properly applied and therefore has carried out the investigation through OLAF. This is probably the case Mrs Mazzoni is referring to; whether there are irregularities as a result of incorrect interpretation of the implementing regulation. However, it is the responsibility of the national customs authorities to follow up on the results of the investigation. Recuperation is in progress but the publication of the data is strictly the responsibility of the competent customs authorities.
As regards the organisation of surveillance; this was one of the items that was raised by Mrs Mazzoni. Here, I have to say that the Commission, as I said, monitors tomato imports from Morocco using a cross-checking system. The quantities imported and reported by the Moroccan authorities on a weekly basis are monitored. The data is then compared with the data provided by the national customs authorities, who survey the system, and also by Eurostat. I think that we have very good and precise information and, if there were some systematic fraud and systematic irregularities, we would definitely spot it and take action.
Mr President, I would firstly like to express my gratitude to the Committee on Petitions for its hard work following the complaint brought by the Spanish Federation of Associations of Producers and Exporters of Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers and Live Plants, based on the report published by OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, in 2007. I believe this report's conclusions are extremely clear and justify only too well action on the part of the European Commission - which should have addressed this matter a long time ago - to clarify the operation of the entry price regime, at least in relation to the tomato sector.
However, not only having failed to take any action to prevent the different types of fraud made possible by the current Entry Price Regulation, the Commission has negotiated a new agriculture agreement with Morocco without having first resolved the shortcomings of the import regime currently in place.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for the European Commission to take its responsibilities seriously, to start investigating where and how fraud is being committed, and, potentially, to demand payment of any unpaid customs duties. I believe that there is no way that a new agreement with Morocco should be ratified until all the details we have set out are resolved.
Our aim is not to hinder new international agreements, but to ensure that such agreements will not seriously damage the interests of European producers, and that the rules laid down in those agreements will be adhered to.
Where the new agreement with Morocco is concerned, all the European fruit and vegetables sector is demanding is a guarantee that the terms agreed will, in fact, be observed. This will only be made possible by reforming the entry price regime. We cannot have a new agreement with Morocco until we have a new system for entry prices. We will not be able to ratify the agreement that the Commission has already concluded.
Moreover, if this supervisory role is to be played by the Member States, they should be required to make a significant financial contribution. However, it is also true that we have long been calling for a European borders and customs system similar to that of the United States, so as to ensure effective control.
According to the Spanish farmers who presented a petition to the European Parliament, underpriced imported Moroccan tomatoes pose a threat to European food producers. They are referring to the underpriced minimum rate which was set at approximately EUR 46 per 100 kg in a preferential import-export agreement between the EU and Morocco. According to EUROSTAT, Morocco exported over 70 000 tonnes of tomatoes in December 2010, which is over double the quota foreseen in the agreement between the EU and Morocco. This is what has caused heavy losses to European producers, never mind the losses from customs payments. OLAF has already commented on this matter, stating in its 2007 report that there may be irregularities in the importing of tomatoes from Morocco in connection with the underpricing of tomatoes in comparison with the initial price agreed by the EU, which, in effect, allows for the non-payment of additional customs duties. In adding my voice to that of other members of the Committee on Petitions, I would, however, like to ask whether the Commission has any intention of revising rules of this kind, and of possibly recovering the unpaid customs duties.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, last October, I tabled a written question to the Commission concerning the discrepancies between the figures in the different EU services on the EU import of tomatoes from Morocco.
In 2008, there were about 100 000 tonnes in difference between DG TAXUD and Eurostat. The Commission answered that it had observed the problem and was solving it, but it is not clear to me whether the Commission will achieve what European citizens and European producers deserve.
In the European Union, we import tomatoes not only from Morocco but also from other third countries. We should find a way for negotiations to be very fair to everyone and not at the expense of the European agriculture sector. We should also find a way to control what we are importing from other countries outside the EU, especially in some northern European ports. Without effective border controls, the European agriculture sector will have a very difficult future.
If European production of tomatoes is damaged by the EU-Morocco Agreement, it will be very difficult to regain production on EU soil. The rules and the obligations should be applied to everyone, which means fair competition. What we cannot accept is the application of different rules and duties to a European producer and an agricultural producer outside the EU. Accepting this means accepting the loss in competitiveness of our agricultural sector and a huge effect on the labour force in Europe. I am in favour of free trade, but under symmetric conditions of production and information. If they do not exist, free trade is not fair trade and competition is not fair competition.
Finally, I do not think that Parliament should ratify the EU-Morocco Agreement without the inclusion of clauses concerning the labour market, the social dimension and the environment in Morocco. If this does not happen, we may lose our European farming activity and our food chain industry.
Mr President, we raised several warnings during the debate on trade agreements on agricultural produce between Morocco and other Mediterranean countries, such as Egypt and Israel. We warned that if these were concluded, they would further increase the pressure faced by farmers in the EU to lower production prices, especially in countries like Portugal, and exacerbate the additional difficulties in disposing of their products. We condemn the liberalisation of trade in fruit and vegetables, which are typically Mediterranean products, as this would lead to large supermarkets stocking lower priced products, which are often exempt from the same rules and standards as those imposed on farmers in the EU. We would like to point out that the liberalisation of trade for agricultural produce promotes models of intensive production for export which favour big agribusiness at the expense of small and medium-sized farming, family farming, and supply for local and regional markets. All this has negative consequences on the sovereignty, security and quality of food, and on the environment.
This situation was the reason for our warnings, which the Commission has regrettably ignored, and is continuing to do so. It has ignored the need to defend the interests of EU producers, ensuring fair prices for production and business continuity, especially for small and medium-sized farming. Moreover, we now know that the Commission also ignored the report by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which denounced irregularities in the importing of tomatoes from Morocco, in a report acknowledging the impact of these imports on lowering tomato prices in the EU market. Not content with this, in the new agricultural chapter in the Association Agreement with Morocco, the Commission has decided to further increase tomato imports to the EU.
When will this liberal fundamentalism, which sacrifices everything to the interests of a few major European corporations and multinational exporters, finally be curbed? How does the Commission intend to make amends to European producers for the damage that it has clearly caused them? We will leave you with these questions.
(ES) Mr President, the tomato growers of the Canary Islands, Murcia, Andalusia and the Community of Valencia, all of them European Union producers, need the Commission to take robust action with regard to an unfair situation which is causing them serious damage. Fraud is being committed, and you know it.
Thanks to its agreement with the EU, Morocco benefits from an entry price to which it does not adhere. In addition, we should not only look at 2007, but also at 2010. The Commission is well aware that Spanish tomato growers have to compete with Moroccan growers under unfair conditions, as they must bear much higher production costs stemming from the strict European standards on quality, food safety and workplace safety, as well as restrictions on pesticides which are not required of third countries.
Even so, our growers, with great effort and commitment to quality, continue to work hard to save their crops. Thus, it is unacceptable for the Commission to ignore the malfunctioning of the entry price regime, whose complexity encourages fraud, as the European Anti-Fraud Office itself does, and for the Commission to look the other way when the tomato quotas agreed with Morocco are being contravened.
It is not enough for the Commission to tell us that surveillance is the responsibility of the Member States. If they fail in their duties, the Commission must act. It is intolerable for regulations on Moroccan import quotas to be breached, and for the applicable customs duties to go unpaid, without the Commission taking any action.
The Commission would have us approve a new agreement with Morocco. Unless we are given assurances that the price system will be modified to prevent unfair competition between Moroccan and Spanish produce, we will certainly not be supporting that initiative.
It is your obligation to ensure adherence to agreements, but it is also your obligation to defend the interests of growers in the Canary Islands, Murcia, Valencia, and Andalusia. Do it before it is too late.
(ES) Mr President, calls for the Entry Price Regulation to be modified began in 2003. This Parliament, the Member States, Spain and France, with the support of Italy, Greece, and Portugal, have all requested it.
The reason for this lies in the fact that the regulation is not being properly applied, with certain duties being left unpaid and a biased calculation method being used. As a consequence, the sector suffers, we have unfair competition, and the Member States receive less revenue from customs duties.
The Special Corps of Fruit and Vegetable Inspectors has verified this, pointing out that Article 5 of the regulation allows a biased application and, as has been said earlier in this House, OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, has stated that the calculation method used enables non-payment of additional duties.
It is up to the Commission to resolve this issue. A solution must be provided, to the production system and to the Member States. This situation has been going on for 16 years.
The sector is suffering. The European fruit and vegetable sector, along with the Spanish fruit and vegetable sector in Valencia, Murcia and Andalusia, are all suffering, and a solution is needed. Consumers are also affected by this situation.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the petition under discussion today has arrived at a time when Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and its Committee on International Trade are debating the new chapter on agriculture in the agreement with Morocco.
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) confirms that there have been irregularities in the calculation of duties on tomato imports and that this has been damaging to European producers, the very same producers who are expressing their concern at the expected increase in tomato and fruit and vegetable imports in general that will take place if the agreement is signed.
We are obviously sensitive to the concerns brought about by bilateral agreements where the agricultural element is often sacrificed for the sake of broader industrial interests. It is not a good way to proceed, and we will continue to repeat this to the European Commission. However, I would like to point out that the current economic and political crisis throughout the Maghreb area should lead us to consider this agreement carefully and with greater solidarity.
(ES) Mr President, as requested by the petitioners from the Spanish Federation of Associations of Producers and Exporters of Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers and Live Plants, the Commission needs to modify - and here I am repeating the request put forward by Spain and other Member States - some of the articles of the regulation to which we are referring.
Focusing on the calculation method for establishing entry prices, one of the three methods currently used, must be removed, specifically the one known as the 'deductive' method. This is the most necessary change, bearing in mind that importers choose the method that, at any given time, allows them to avoid paying additional duties.
Now that the new agreement with Morocco is pending adoption by this Parliament for its entry into force, the Commission would certainly prove its worth by correcting the system once and for all. We are calling for this once again today, as properly working entry prices are the compensation that our growers can reasonably expect when its entry into force is agreed upon.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that today's debate following the petition presented by the Spanish Federation of Associations of Producers and Exporters of Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers and Live Plants is apt and well-timed, in view of the fact that the commercial agreement with Morocco is being discussed in Parliament at the same time.
It is clear that the petition raises an issue to which the Commission does not yet seem to have provided an answer. This House strongly calls for the answer to be given before the new agreement is signed, because it is not acceptable that European farmers should continue to pay the price of this desire for free trade that is pervading Europe.
We need to defend and safeguard our farmers, not only with regard to tomato production, but also with regard to all fruit and vegetable production, which would be severely affected by this indiscriminate opening up of the market.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the criticisms that we have heard here this morning in connection with the petition presented are understandable. I think there is still a long way to go before we can ensure that a possible general agreement on agricultural products with Morocco receives consensus approval. On the one hand, the agreement must respect the need for balance, and not cause serious difficulties for European agricultural producers. On the other, it must respect the need for clear and transparent rules of competition on agricultural markets. This is the path to follow in order to ensure that the relationship between the European Union and Morocco is a positive one.
I therefore invite the Commission to look for suitable solutions that do not lose sight of the producers' interests, but which also do not lose sight of a renewed policy of generosity towards Morocco, particularly in view of the events taking place in the Maghreb.
It would be very useful to understand, and I do not want us to end up effectively importing tomato pickers, instead of agricultural products and tomatoes. It is therefore important to carry out a thorough investigation in order to create a new European policy.
(ES) Mr President, I believe that the 'business as usual' policy has already been the cause of many misfortunes for us in the past. Therefore, we must be very cautious, particularly with regard to the current situation in North Africa. Precisely because of this, I would like to join in with those who have said that, under the current circumstances, it is scarcely appropriate to move forward with the trade agreement with Morocco.
As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries, I believe we need thorough clarification of the progress being made in the current framework. We must also clearly demand that any tomatoes - or any other produce - entering the European Union arrive under the same conditions as are demanded of local growers. In the absence of this assurance, we should - indeed must - rethink the entire framework, and this is what I hope this House will also do.
Rather than adopting a protectionist policy, I believe there is a need for firm commitment to fair trade. We must also be free of any doubts as to what the framework is, so that we are able to know and to act as responsibly as possible.
(ES) Mr President, I must thank all my fellow Members who have understood the problem of the Mediterranean region, the Spanish delegation, and all those who understand that we in the Canary Islands, Murcia, Valencia and Almeria, in addition to being frustrated at the Commission's failure to honour its agreements, and to having seen many companies forced out of business, remain the entry point for immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, the entry point for Moroccan immigrants, and a buffer against the crisis. This is because we are currently supporting, at a time of utter economic penury, people who come to work and are able to send money home to their families.
Therefore, I believe that the Commission must also behave responsibly with regard to the competences granted to it by the Treaties. I believe the Commission has not given any thought to the need to defend the interests of the public, or to the need to prevent an indiscriminate policy which, moreover, makes us import produce grown in extremely dubious phytosanitary conditions.
(DE) Mr President, one of the reasons the internal market was established was so as to provide European consumers with better protection. Consumers have a right to be able to buy healthy, fairly produced products throughout the European Union.
Opening up the market - in other words, a controlled import quota - must therefore be subject to at least three requirements being met. Firstly, there must be clear control of the quantity of imports permitted. This relates mainly to the quantitative aspect. Secondly, the quality of the products must also be controlled. This also relates to production standards. Thirdly, the impact on farmers in the European Union needs to be taken into consideration. Business that harms third parties - and here, this generally means business that favours industry to the detriment of agriculture - must be prevented.
I therefore ask the Commission to subject the agreement with Morocco to further careful scrutiny and not to sign it until it has undergone a further review.
(FR) Mr President, I should like to thank the Spanish producers who submitted this timely petition to us.
Indeed, for months now, we in Parliament have been warning the Commission of the danger to our internal market of a number of bilateral agreements. Clearly, we are sensitive to the issue of Morocco's development. Clearly, we know that creating stability for the Moroccan people in their own country is the best possible solution, and that it will stop us from having to solve numerous immigration problems in the future. However, when the Commission tells us that a new agreement will simply ratify a situation, we can plainly see, through the reports by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), that the situation to which the Commission refers is not the real solution.
Furthermore, I should like to alert the Commission to another point. We are told that the negotiated - the renegotiated - agreements will enable us to support Moroccan producers. Which producers are we talking about, though? The exporters are primarily large agri-food companies that have set up huge farms in Morocco. Small Moroccan producers are not the ones who benefit from our agreements, as they do not have the capacity to produce in conditions acceptable to the European market. Let us not confuse the issue, but do not mislead the MEPs either: that is my request to the Commission.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, if you will allow me, I will start with some figures because they were referred to by several speakers in their statements. I will use the Comext data for this.
EU imports of tomatoes from Morocco grew from 185 000 tonnes in the 1999-2000 season to 295 000 tonnes in 2009-2010, following the normal trend of fresh fruit and vegetable imports from all over the world. At the same time, total additional EU imports of tomatoes increased from 242 000 tonnes to 493 000 tonnes. I have to underline that Morocco's share of total EU imports actually decreased from 76% to 59%. EU tomato production varies between 16 and 18 million tonnes per year, of which 6.5 to 7.5 million tonnes are destined for the fresh market. I think that it is very good to bear these figures in mind so that we can keep this discussion and the size of the problem in proportion.
Regarding the new agreement with Morocco, we in the Commission believe that it is modest and balanced. If it is adopted, the Commission will, of course, ensure that all its conditions and rules are fully respected. Additional quantities under the tariff rate quota will be kept below the traditional average of supplies to the EU. The current average annual level is 300 000 tonnes. With an additional 52 000 tonnes, there will be 285 000 tonnes within the tariff rate quota, so there will still be scope for 15 000 tonnes of imports under the usual erga omnes regime.
Turning to another problem raised, namely, the claim that we failed to act, I really cannot accept that because we did not find any systemic failure in the system. There was one case that was also presented here today in which OLAF investigated the problem and referred the whole file with the findings to the French court, which did not support the full extent of OLAF's findings, but nevertheless, the partial recovery of unpaid duties has started.
I would also like to assure this House that, regarding control of phytosanitary standards, the Commission is assuring the highest possible control and the highest possible level of standards for every import of fresh fruit and vegetables to the European Union. At the same time, I have to say that I understand the vigilance of the Members of the European Parliament and the vigilance of the agricultural sector on these very pertinent issues. I would like to assure them that, if the organisations have concrete evidence of fraud, they are invited to bring this to the attention of the Commission, which will carefully analyse it and take appropriate action if needed.
The debate is closed.
(The sitting was suspended at 11:35 and resumed at 12:00)


9. 2009 discharge: European Aviation Safety Agency (


Composition of political groups: see Minutes


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


6. Rule of law in Russia (


EU-US air agreement (debate)
The next item is the statement by the Commission on the EU-US air agreement.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like first to thank Parliament for the opportunity to present the outcome of the negotiations with the United States on the Second Stage Air Services Agreement.
Earlier this year, on 25 March, the European Commission initialled the Second Stage Agreement - an agreement of which Parliament has been very supportive. Parliament played a hugely constructive role throughout these negotiations, for which the Commission is extremely grateful.
Let me go through the key elements of the Second Stage Agreement. This agreement builds on the First Stage Agreement, in effect since 30 March 2008, by creating the prospects for additional investment and market access opportunities, as well as further strengthening the framework of cooperation on regulatory issues such as the environment, social protection, competition and security.
On the environment, the draft Second Stage Agreement establishes a robust framework for tackling the local and global environmental challenges affecting Europe and the US through the pursuit of joint projects addressing practical solutions such as cleaner in-flight and air traffic management technologies and cooperation in international forums such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Both sides also formally recognise the importance of avoiding duplication and enhancing the compatibility of their respective market-based measures. I would mention here, in particular, the emission trading scheme.
Europe is also set to benefit from progress made in the area of security, where the agreement seeks to reduce the security burden on airports through the promotion of assessment activities and timely consultation on future requirements. In the area of competition, the agreement enhances cooperation between the responsible authorities as well as the transparency and predictability of regulatory decisions on both sides of the Atlantic.
For the first time in such an aviation agreement, the need to balance market access opportunities with strong social protection has been recognised through a commitment to implementing the provisions of the agreement in a way which does not undermine labour rights.
On the commercial front, Europe has gained further rights, including immediate access to the 'Fly America' programme (with the exception of defence), which, up to now, restricted US Government-funded air transport to US carriers only.
But perhaps the most important element of the draft agreement is the commitment to move forward. As part of the agreement, Europe and the United States have committed to the goal of removing the remaining market barriers that face the industry, including those that limit airlines' access to global capital. Progress towards this goal will be reviewed annually and will involve working together through the Joint Committee. Together with a high-level review if progress is too slow, we have a targeted approach for advancing in this area.
Both sides have an incentive to make progress in this area through the guarantee of additional rights to operate passenger seventh freedom rights and develop stakes in third-country carriers.
To summarise, the agreement advances cooperation across a wide range of regulatory matters, including areas such as security, consumer protection, the role of the Joint Committee and the environment. It delivers immediate and future additional commercial opportunities, establishes a road map for change in the vital area of investment reform and, importantly, secures the benefits of the existing First Stage Agreement that would have been lost if we had not reached this Second Stage Agreement. Some of them would have been lost.
A study commissioned to examine the benefit of the First and Second Stage Agreements has estimated that it could be worth up to EUR 12 billion in economic benefits and up to 80 000 new jobs - both very valuable in the current economic climate.
For these reasons, I hope that Parliament will support this important agreement.
Mr President, Mrs Georgieva, the EU-US air agreement is, of course, very important. For this reason, Parliament and our committee have played a very active role in the discussions and the visits.
Around 60% of world air traffic is between America and Europe, which gives an indication of its importance. We hope that both partners are therefore aware of the need for a genuine bilateral agreement and that they will be encouraged in future to improve the current state of affairs even further. Although I respect the work that has been done and although I have much admiration for the waves of optimism emanating from the negotiators at the end of the talks, I am personally of the opinion, together with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), that there are still some areas in need of negotiation and that the current results are not as satisfactory as we might have hoped.
There are a few outstanding issues. One of these is capital interest and we had hoped that things would have moved forward in this area. However, in all honesty there has hardly been any progress, apart from the fact that a willingness to discuss the subject has been mentioned. Secondly, we wanted to see progress with regard to the technical monitoring centres, which is in our joint interest. We did not see any evidence of it. As far as market access is concerned, we hardly dare to talk about cabotage, because this subject seems to have almost become a taboo in the USA. However, I would say that whatever we offer the other party in a positive bilateral agreement, we must also be able to enjoy ourselves. This is not yet quite the case. Therefore, I am still of the opinion that, apart from one point, which we must not underestimate and that is the social aspect, not much concrete progress has been made, but there is a great deal of willingness to make progress in future.
For this reason, we can perhaps summarise Parliament's attitude in three points. The first is that agreements of this kind need a legal basis. Particularly where the exchange of data and information is concerned, we must follow data protection legislation. Parliament must, on no account, be presented with a fait accompli. Secondly, we must emphasise the bilateral nature of these agreements. They are not unilateral, but genuine bilateral agreements. Thirdly, it is also important for us to set a date for starting further negotiations. The result of this is that we will be doing something in this area as early as October/November 2010. I believe that in future, we will hopefully be able to establish a true bilateral agreement in economic, environmental and social terms.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when we agreed to the first stage of the air agreement back in 2007, we did so for two important reasons. Firstly, the United States had accepted the concept of the 'European carrier', meaning that, from the date of entry into force of the agreement, any European carrier could fly from any European point to any point in the United States. That was an important innovation in itself, as this had not been the case for all our carriers beforehand. Secondly, a Joint Committee had been set up, providing us with a structural framework for regular consultations with the aim of allowing convergence of the regulatory frameworks, which is, of course, necessary for the establishment of a true single transatlantic aviation market in the longer term.
Imbalances have remained in the agreement, however, as historical concessions have meant that United States carriers have greater access to the European single market than the other way round, and the access to each other's capital structure also works to the disadvantage of EU carriers. That is why the clause giving a deadline prior to the end of this year for a more comprehensive agreement was so important in keeping up the pressure and forcing the United States into concessions.
Although the result before us is a further step in the right direction, it largely preserves the existing imbalances. In particular, insufficient progress has been made on market access by European carriers in the United States and on potential European ownership of and control over United States carriers.
Therefore, despite some positive elements also cited by my fellow Member Mr Grosch - in the environmental and social fields, for example - we shall only be able to accept this agreement if we are given more than a commitment to take further steps. A kind of mechanism must be developed for making further steps forward during the next few years, including on market access and also passengers' rights, so as to establish a high level of rights - proper rights - for us all, and ensuring that there are no new concessions to our American friends in the meanwhile.
Finally, I wish to ask the Commission to keep us fully apprised of the activities within the Joint Committee and ensure that we receive all reports and invitations, just like the stakeholders do.
Mr President, Mrs Georgieva, you have presented this existing agreement and have said that there has been significant progress.
We in Parliament take a less generous approach than you, as you have already heard. It is important that this agreement is in place, because the EU and the USA together account for about 60% of global air traffic and the USA is an important partner of ours in general terms.
The problem is simply that, in a partnership, the conditions for both partners should be roughly the same. However, it is not possible to say that the conditions are the same when the USA has a 49% share of our market and we are only allowed about a 25% share of theirs. It is clear that this represents an imbalance. A small delegation went to the USA and took part in negotiations in the spring of this year. The Americans said to us that, if we wanted greater market access, we would have to lift the limitations on night flights and change the noise restrictions. We explained that for us, this is a question of subsidiarity which has to be respected. Basically, we can only negotiate on other issues if we have a reasonably level playing field.
Four points were mentioned. The environment: we can make some joint progress via the emissions trading system, simply because we have such a large share of the world market.
Social standards: something has been achieved in this area and passengers' rights were also mentioned. Competition: this still leaves something to be desired.
As far as security is concerned, I would now like to talk about data. The American concept of data protection and privacy is different from ours. We understandably want our concept of privacy to be respected. We looked at the body scanners while we were in the USA. There, it is normal for the scanners to show an image of the entire body, with only the face being concealed. This was completely inconceivable to us. We want privacy and data to be protected in every case. This has to be respected.
We in Parliament, with our new powers from the Treaty of Lisbon, will be happy to discuss this with you.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, we would all welcome a successful conclusion to the EU-US Open Skies agreement. Indeed, after several years of negotiation, it is really rather overdue.
Obviously, this second-stage draft agreement is a significant breakthrough and is to be welcomed. I acknowledge that negotiators have made progress in the areas of security, competition and market access, but I am disappointed at the failure to resolve fully issues of foreign ownership and control and cabotage. We also support Parliament's motion for a joint resolution. However, I am concerned that specific references to ETS, EU social issues and a date deadline have been included in the text, as we do not have the authority to broaden the scope of air service agreements.
The aviation industry has suffered massively over the last decade and although there is some improvement, it is still fragile, particularly in Europe. Agreements often mean compromise, but that does not mean we want a deal at any price. It is about give and take.
So finally, I would say to the Commissioner that we want an agreement which is fair, robust and leads to full liberalisation which will benefit European carriers, consumers and our American friends.
(RO) The European Community initiated the measures required to increase flexibility, open up the markets and ensure consistency in the civil aviation sector, based both on bilateral and multilateral relations.
With regard to the EU-US Air Transport Agreement, we should mention that a preliminary agreement was already signed on 25 March 2010. This agreement opens up the markets completely and gives a high priority to cooperation on the development of the EU and US air traffic management systems, SESAR and NextGen, in order to ensure interoperability and compatibility, as well as help reduce the environmental impact.
The EU-US agreement will be virtually one of the first agreements signed on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon. I also wish to stress that any transfers involving personal data from the EU and Member States should, for security reasons, be carried out on the basis of international agreements recognised as legislative acts and in compliance with European data protection legislation. We regret that the emissions trading system regulation is not part of the preliminary agreement. On this point, we call for additional negotiations, bearing in mind the ETS system's entry into force in 2012.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, sincere thanks to all the speakers for the comments they have made. Despite the late hour, there is very clearly considerable interest in many of the topics. It has been quite rightly mentioned that Europe and the United States together represent close to 60% of global aviation traffic. Therefore, this agreement is very significant: not only for the citizens of Europe and the United States, but for all the passengers that take advantage of our carriers.
In addition to the face-value significance for air transport, the unparalleled business links, strong demographic and cultural ties and geographic positioning mean that the US, for Europe, is the most important strategic aviation partner. It is exactly the objective of this agreement to consolidate this strategic transatlantic partnership and to secure the gains from the First Stage Agreement guaranteeing a stable framework for future relations.
A number of speakers pointed out the need to continue this process of engagement so we can make further advances. One of the achievements of the Second Stage Agreement is indeed that it puts in place a process of engagement.
I would like to immediately reply at this point that of course, the Commission would be keenly interested in sharing our own work in the Joint Committee with Parliament, as we see a significant value in Parliament's engagement as we move forward.
By opening up more opportunities for the industry and addressing some of the regulatory challenges it faces, the agreement will play a role in helping the European aviation industry emerge from the current period, which is characterised by profound economic and operational challenges.
Let me be very clear. The Commission, like many of the speakers, agrees that the Second Stage Agreement is not perfect. It is a very important step forward but it is not a perfect or conclusive step.
Like the speakers here, the Commission would have liked to have seen an immediate and irrevocable change to the US law governing ownership and control of their airlines, but the reality is that this is not in the hands of the US Administration, with whom we negotiate. It is a legislative reform that can only be delivered with the support of the US Congress.
This leads me to a very important message to this audience: that Europe will have to use its influence to persuade the US Congress of the merits of continuous reforms. In this respect in particular, the European Parliament will have a key role to play, with the engagement and the opportunities Parliament has with Congress in relations with members of Congress. I hope that we can count on you to advance the dialogue, the discussions and, most importantly, the legislative steps needed.
On the issue that was pointed out by a couple of speakers on data protection: just for the record, this is not part of the Air Services Agreement. It is a matter of justice and home affairs and obviously a matter that is of importance, and it will be taken up seriously in the context of discussions in that field.
So let me stop here and thank the Members again for their very useful and constructive comments.
I have received five motions for resolutionstabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 17 June 2010.


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 12.40 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)


Petitions: see Minutes


Documents received: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 19.35 and resumed at 21.00)


1. Somalia (vote)


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session suspended on Thursday 10 May 2007.


1. NUTS - amending Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU (vote)
- Report: Gerardo Galeote


10. United Nations Convention against corruption (vote)
- Before the vote
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the shadow rapporteurs on this report, in particular, Mrs Mastenbroek and Mrs Kudrycka, who have contributed to the final draft.
Corruption represents a serious problem for the transparent management of public affairs: it undermines credibility, increases distrust of democratic institutions and jeopardises human rights and the rule of law, allowing organised crime to prosper. Corruption is an age-old problem of which there are many literary accounts: Cicero spoke of it as early as 70 BC. Unfortunately, the cancer of corruption has also gained a foothold in the workings of the European Institutions. It is worrying that the European Union Court of Auditors refuses to approve the Community budget because of serious doubts held over the proper use of funds, and it is equally embarrassing that the Belgian judiciary has opened legal proceedings against Commission employees for alleged payoffs for the acquisition of funds allocated for the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
In the same way, we see the problem of corruption in the use of the Structural Funds, as the funds are often managed for individual gain, or, as is the case in my region, the classifications are falsified, to the extent that the European Commission has had to impose fines of EUR 75 million. This is why we believe that problems of corruption are both subtle and dangerous. The fight against corruption must be a priority for the European Union, and, in our opinion, this Convention should also be signed by all the Member States of the European Union. In addition, we call on the Commission and the Council to take action so that, as well as this Convention being signed, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime is also signed. I believe that this represents a significant contribution towards the fight against organised crime, which is, unfortunately, still on the rise in the European Union.
(Applause)


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes