The regional impact of earthquakes (debate)
The next item is the report by Nikolaos Vakalis, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the regional impact of earthquakes.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I requested this report after I made the following discovery: although earthquakes in the 20th century have killed 1.5 million people worldwide and injured many more; although earthquakes are the second most deadly natural disaster in the world; and although in 2002-2007, earthquakes were the fourth most frequent natural disaster in the Member States and the candidate countries, we in the EU responded to the problem only occasionally and peripherally, and only in the context of other natural disasters.
I now feel vindicated and satisfied that my report has been approved by the Committee on Regional Development and enjoys the support of all the political groups. The European Parliament's message is clear: in future we, the EU, must not and cannot deal with the problem of earthquakes intermittently and peripherally; we must focus on it as a distinct, separate problem and examine all of its individual aspects and components.
In particular, the report asks the Commission to waste no time in preparing a communication containing an earthquake risk assessment and an examination of prevention, management, relief and restoration measures. In other words, the communication has to be equivalent to that on floods. The European Parliament expects the Commission to examine, at least within the scope of such a communication, a number of proposals contained in the report.
Firstly, the adoption of earthquake protection measures should in future be an essential requirement for the funding of infrastructure from the Structural Funds, especially in view of the fact that earthquakes threaten the overall economic and social cohesion of the regions affected. Earthquakes are, above all, a threat to life and limb, infrastructure, employment, the environment, cultural heritage and tourism.
Secondly, we should promote the construction of new buildings, as well as the conservation and upgrading of old buildings and structures, which include monuments that are not compliant with earthquake specifications.
Thirdly, the European Commission should ensure that more funds are allocated to public information and the training of professionals dealing with earthquakes.
Fourthly, a European strategy for earthquake research should be developed. Account should be taken of not only the social but also the economic benefits that such action entails.
Fifthly, a technical protocol should be drawn up on joint action by the EU in the event of serious seismic disasters, with particular emphasis on the crucial infrastructures of transport, energy, telecommunications and health.
Lastly, the Barnier proposal should be revived. There should also be a follow-up to the Sarkozy-Karamanlis proposal for a European civil protection force, through a legislative - I stress the word, legislative - proposal by the Commission.
Madam President, Commissioner, the report to be approved tomorrow by this Parliament makes specific proposals. We - both the Commission and the Member States - wish to respond to them immediately and take action in accordance with each party's responsibilities.
Let me conclude by thanking the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation, and also my fellow Members in all political groups who have improved my original proposal through their interventions and amendments.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission, and I personally, wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Vakalis, for this extremely informative and valuable report.
Earthquakes are not easy to deal with. There needs to be adequate preparation and sufficient measures must be taken in advance so that we can cope with the most serious effects.
2007 was an important year for developing ways of dealing with natural disasters at EU level. Not only did we have the largest single mobilisation of the EU civil protection mechanism to fight the Greek forest fires, but two new legislative measures on civil protection were adopted: the financial instrument for civil protection, and a revised European civil protection mechanism. In addition, as announced in September and following the European Parliament's resolution on forest fires and floods, the Commission is to launch a special initiative to strengthen the EU's capacity to deal with disasters.
A rapid and effective response to emergencies is obviously of crucial importance, particularly for risks such as earthquakes, which are practically impossible to foresee. However, even when unforeseen events occur, an effective response can and must be supplemented by suitable preventive measures, such as early warning, to limit potential damage and enable the situation to be brought under control.
For these reasons, in 2008 the Commission will develop a complete initiative to improve disaster prevention generally.
After response and prevention, the third stage in the management of disasters such as earthquakes is restoration. In this context, I welcome Parliament's call for the Council to promote the proposal on the Solidarity Fund.
The financial instrument for civil protection provides a long-term funding framework for civil protection such as earthquake response operations. The new regulation has almost doubled the funds available. The Commission also has special plans for dealing with earthquake-related issues and, thanks to the capital allocated by the European Parliament to the EU budget in 2006, the Commission is already supporting the STEP project. This project is being implemented through a partnership between Italy, Portugal and Germany and aims to develop a mobile assessment and administration unit for earthquake management. The Commission endorses the appeal by the rapporteur, Mr Vakalis, for better coordination. The events of last summer have shown that although the EU civil protection response was impressive, there is still room for improvement. On the basis of the recommendations of the Barnier report, the Commission is now developing ready-formed civil protection units composed of disaster response experts that can be mobilised instantly.
Lastly, the rapporteur, Mr Vakalis, underlines the importance of cooperation with third countries. The civil protection mechanism allows cooperation with third countries and with the Euromed programme in the prevention, mitigation and management of natural and man-made disasters and is another good example of cooperation in this sector.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to congratulate Mr Vakalis on his report. As a Greek, he has tackled a subject that also affects his own region and citizens. He completed his own-initiative report in a very short time and I give it my full support.
I would very much like to look at disaster control and disaster prevention in a broader context, namely climate change. Rainfall, serious rainfall, floods, rising sea levels, etc. are going to become more and more prevalent.
In that respect, people naturally look to the European Union. From 31 October to 2 November I participated in a debate in the United Nations in New York with representatives of many continents and regions. They also look to Europe and ask us to do our best as regards prevention, prevention programmes and disaster prevention, and want us to bring our expertise into play.
I think that we do indeed need to offer this, alongside innovation and solidarity, on a global scale. My country, the Netherlands, also partially lies below sea level and has special expertise that we can use in this area. I am therefore pleased that we can set a good example with the various funds in the European Union.
I would like to reiterate my support for what was said in the debate with the Commission this morning: our Solidarity Fund must be more flexible. We have a very good Fund, a very good example, but the European Council still has reservations about it.
Finally, Madam President, Mr Vakalis' report has a specifically European dimension. Disasters are frequently multinational, they do not stop at borders, and I would thus call on the Commission to put forward initiatives with a view to protecting and supporting our citizens.
on behalf of the PSE group. - (RO) Madam President, Mr. Rapporteur, dear colleagues, the report on the regional impact of earthquakes was not an easy undertaking, especially because it came as earthquakes do: very quickly and unexpectedly. For this reason, I would like to congratulate our colleague Mr. Vakalis for the way in which he managed to be a captain on this ship.
Since earthquakes have no ideological connotations, we have had no clashes of opinions among groups. Our only mission was to find pragmatic formulas to fill a gap in legislation and to create efficient response mechanisms at a European level.
I would like to say that, according to Mr. Vakalis' initial intuition, during the research period for this report we discovered that, at the level of the European Union, we have serious gaps regarding earthquake protection.
We have no unitary mechanism for intervention in case of an earthquake. Hazard maps are lacking in many European countries and regions. We have no relevant national laws in many countries. We invest very little in research. We have no European research agenda in the field of seismic risk.
Seismic risk protection in insurance policies, for instance, is lacking or is insignificant. We have no education campaign for the population, although we have a Eurocod 8, which contains instructions for earthquake protection. Nevertheless, it does not apply to urban planning regulations for new constructions.
In a word, we also proposed other things. Mr. Vakalis has mentioned some of them. Those of us who come from the Party of European Socialists reiterated the support for establishing a European civil protection force, inviting the Commission to make a proposal for this purpose. We proposed a European centralized instrument for preventing and managing earthquake crises. We insisted on advanced research and a programme financed at the European level.
To all this, Mr. Vakalis operated like a perfect catalyst, he prepared excellent syntheses for compromise amendments when we threatened to draw up a report the size of a dictionary. For this reason, I believe the report is a result of excellent team work and I congratulate Mr. Vakalis and all the colleagues who participated in this report.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, congratulations to Mr Vakalis for his excellent work. This report highlights the fact that, although earthquakes can have a devastating economic and social impact in seismic-stricken regions, not enough attention has been paid to them by the EU. The rapporteur advocates - and rightly so - that a series of regulatory and financial measures are urgently needed in order to remedy this unhappy state of affairs. Such measures should aim at minimalisation of damage caused as well as facilitating speedy and effective response and compensation to affected individuals and communities.
Mr Vakalis states that an area which should be given special attention is that of research. I agree. Not necessarily of course research in predicting earthquakes, a practice which has been proven to have limitations, but research in the way we construct our buildings. Attention to more stable, robust and lightweight materials is an example. Safety features to prevent electrocution and electric fires being caused after a tremor are another area where research can help prevent loss of life. Research into telecommunications systems that do not get so easily jumped in the panic that follows an earthquake and research into specialised equipment for detecting and extracting victims from collapsed buildings are other areas where research can be most helpful and very rewarding.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the motion for a resolution on the regional impact of earthquakes addresses for the first time, in a logical and coherent fashion, the issue of seismic vulnerability in parts of the Union and consequently the remit of civil protection services. I therefore say to the rapporteur: praise where praise is due!
I am fascinated by, and directly involved in, this matter, living as I do in the European region at greatest risk of seismic and volcanic activity: Sicily, at the foot of Mount Etna. I had the honour of serving as the Italian Government's commissioner for emergencies recently during a serious eruption of that volcano. I am therefore familiar with the problem at close quarters, and I also know how behind the times Italy is when it comes to risk forecasting and prevention, and not just seismic risk of course.
Europe, too, lags a long way behind on this front, however. I have, for example, been calling on Parliament and the Commission for years to establish a European Civil Protection Agency responsible for coordinating the Member States' emergency management services and drawing up a uniform policy on prevention, forecasting and training for staff and volunteers.
Today's resolution appears to go in that direction at long last. If the truth be told, the European Union as a whole still lacks a culture of civil protection, which often remains nothing more than the subject of round tables and electoral promises, even though what is at stake is the right of each and every one of us to safety. Before asking local actors, provinces, municipalities and regions for concrete examples, Europe should demonstrate that it wishes to turn the page at last, and I believe that this resolution could constitute the first proper step in that direction.
Mr President, earthquakes are inevitable, but protective shielding measures can be taken to minimise death and destruction and to allow people to enjoy greater safety.
The rapporteur proposes a number of valid measures, which I shall not reiterate. However, I must in addition emphasise the need for pre-earthquake inspection and the reinforcement of structures where there is a problem, in both public and private buildings such as factories, colleges, recreation centres: I mean places where people gather in large numbers. At the same time, we must protect and extend open spaces to accommodate the population after a catastrophic earthquake because the profitability of land has encouraged building development.
As regards new construction, the quality of materials and the reliability of builders' must be verified, as human lives are sometimes disregarded in the interests of greater profit, as we know from earthquakes in Greece. Special protection measures must first be applied in areas of higher seismic risk. These are essentially densely built-up areas that are deprived socially, economically and in terms of housing.
It is right that there should be Community aid for restoration. This is the people's money. The government will also have to adhere to procedures adapted to the soil and housing conditions of the area in order to provide the greatest possible earthquake protection and improvement of residential buildings.
Mr President, I would like to congratulate my fellow Member, Mr Vakalis, and thank the Commissioner, Mr Dimas, for the hope he is giving us for the future.
You can escape from fire, Mr President, and if you can swim, you can get away from floods. In an earthquake, you can only hope to have God on your side. Since this concerns our metaphysical aims and hopes, it would be good to have the EU on our side. Sometimes, unfortunately, we do not, because we have seen the Solidarity Fund activated for only one earthquake incident, whereas in cases of flood and fire, it showed great willingness. We understand, of course, that according to regulations, the damage should exceed 3 billion, but the houses that fall are not those of Onassis or Bill Gates; they are the homes of the poor. We can therefore bypass the regulations. Since the Mediterranean region has often suffered intolerable ordeals verging on unfair physical punishment, we are calling, if possible, for the activation of the Structural Development Fund, the Solidarity Fund (provided its strict rules can be moderated), the European Regional Development Fund and also the Civil Protection Fund. This will permit the funding of vital research programmes and also allow the repair of damage, wherever this can humanly and fairly be achieved.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this excellent report by our colleague Mr Vakalis links in seamlessly to the three reports on natural disasters adopted by Parliament last year and is an important addition to them, for these previous reports did not deal with the issue of earthquakes. We know, however, that many countries and regions - especially in southern Europe and the Mediterranean region - have a high risk of earthquakes. I therefore endorse the rapporteur's call for the Commission to draw up a communication evaluating the hazards posed by earthquakes and proposing the counter- and follow-up measures necessary to address them, as it recently did in the case of floods.
The question of financing is key, of course, and as the rapporteur on the Solidarity Fund, I cannot understand why the Council is still dragging its feet on - indeed, has in effect shelved - the adaptation of the Solidarity Fund, which this House has endorsed. Immediate action is required here to ensure that this solidarity and funding instrument is available in future so that the damage caused by natural disasters, including earthquakes, can be remedied quickly, efficiently and flexibly. Without this flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetables and measures for funding, it has been shown in the past that the needs of earthquake victims have been virtually ignored.
We must consider - as the previous speaker has said - that the Solidarity Fund that is currently still in place has only been used once in relation to earthquake damage. However, earthquakes are just as much natural disasters as floods, forest fires and storms. There are other forms of financing, in addition to direct funding, which should be used as well, however, such as regional state subsidies or loans from the European Investment Fund. This is the only way to ensure that appropriate resources are available to tackle earthquakes. The report makes a good contribution to this process.
(DE) Mr President, the earthquake in Friaul 30 years ago killed more than 3 000 people and is something which I still remember very vividly. The images of the destruction, caused within a matter of seconds, and the race against time to free the injured from the rubble are something I will never forget. It is therefore especially welcome that the European Parliament is dealing with this important issue. Without the unstinting commitment of rescue workers - including volunteers from neighbouring countries - this type of earthquake disaster is almost impossible to cope with, for only swift assistance is helpful.
Despite that fact, there is still very little cooperation in the EU on research regarding earthquake risks and no common mechanism at European level for crisis intervention. Binding rules for cross-border cooperation are needed and the cooperation with emergency relief organisations must be stepped up. I welcome the proposal to incorporate Eurocode 8 instructions in the planning regulations of vulnerable countries. In most European countries at present there is no legal basis for the assessment of major building structures, but it is those public buildings of strategic importance for civil protection and other critical infrastructures which, in the event of a disaster, must remain undamaged and operational and which require special protection. The assessment of important buildings must therefore be incorporated as a key element in the regional programmes.
Finally, may I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the reconstruction that has been carried out by the people affected by these disasters. They are a good example of how, through their own efforts, there is hope of a better future even after total destruction. I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur sincerely for his work.
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by recalling Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's words that there is no point arguing with an earthquake. Although 150 years old, these words still hold true today. As described in the report by Mr Vakalis, we must learn to live with earthquakes and be completely prepared for them. I would like to commend the rapporteur for his laying down practical instructions and showing us the way forward.
There is no doubt that an earthquake is a destructive phenomenon. According to estimates by geo-physicians and historians, since the dawn of civilisation earthquakes have claimed the lives of 150 million people. Fully half of the human population today live in areas with seismic activity. In Europe, earthquakes might not always have catastrophic consequences; however, we still need to be protected from them. An earthquake reaching just 5 on the Richter scale can be dangerous in that it causes loose objects to fall, roofing to cave in, buildings to be negatively affected and gas and water services to be damaged.
I personally believe that the steps taken recently to eliminate the negative impact of earthquakes are the correct ones. They include: introduction of a single emergency phone number; construction of integrated emergency systems; promotion of international cooperation; and exchange of information between rescue forces. We need to follow up on these steps by continuously strengthening the cooperation of rescue forces in neighbouring regions and countries, improving the qualifications and skills of civil protection experts, ensuring widespread use of information technologies and promoting training for, and simulation of, possible disasters.
We should not aim for the impossible, for example setting up common bodies or harmonising legislation. Rather we should focus on the flaws in the existing system. Last but not least, we need to realise that earthquakes are just one form of natural disasters, like floods, fires or drought, and that the problem of natural disasters should be dealt with as a whole.
(SL) They say that a friend in need is a friend indeed. A region where a powerful or even catastrophic earthquake has occurred naturally requires rapid and effective European Union assistance, particularly where the country concerned is itself unable to provide such assistance in full.
In view of the frequency of earthquakes in Europe, the number of victims and the material damage involved, it is highly unlikely that resources from a solidarity fund to assist the victims of earthquakes would be used only once. The catastrophic fire in Greece demonstrated that the European Union is not sufficiently well organised to deal with such disasters.
I agree with the proposal that we should invest greater resources in research into improved seismic risk monitoring, and funds for that purpose have already been provided in the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. It is also prudent to cooperate with countries which already have extensive knowledge and experience in this field.
A strategic plan for dealing with earthquakes, rapid response, coordinated rescue and cross-border assistance can save a large number of human lives. Naturally, advanced measures can also prevent many problems. Who could imagine Brussels without the Grand Place, Paris without the Eiffel Tower, or London without Buckingham Palace? Every country and region has its jewels and cultural heritage which it must protect as much as possible against earthquakes. Standards for earthquake-proof building must also be complied with consistently, in particular in areas with a high level of seismic activity.
Mr President, once again I should like to thank all the speakers in tonight's debate for their extremely positive contributions.
The Commission supports the approval of the report on the regional impact of earthquakes. Citizens expect the Member States and institutional bodies to act effectively and in a spirit of solidarity when faced with disasters. The prevention of environmental damage and damage caused by human activity entails the strengthening and development of civil protection resources and capabilities at local, national and European level. The Commission is confident that Parliament will continue to endorse and support this aim in the future.
Lastly, let me remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that on 22 and 23 November, the Commission is holding its second civil protection forum in Brussels. The forum will be attended by approximately 500 participants who work in the field of civil protection or have an interest in it. It will enable participants to exchange ideas and will give them a chance to meet others who share their interest in civil protection and who work in the same field. I therefore call on my fellow Members to take part in the forum and meet the civil protection community.
Once again let me congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Vakalis, on his excellent report.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (FR) Tectonic movements are manifested not only by earthquakes but also by volcanic eruptions. In addition, the effects of these natural hazards can be aggravated, notably by land movements and tsunamis.
The European Union's outermost regions, which often suffer this type of disaster, have developed key experience in observing, preventing and responding to these phenomena.
I hope that the Commission and the Member States encourage the setting-up of centres of excellence in scientific, technological and architectural innovation in the regions affected by these natural hazards, notably the outermost regions.
The dual objective of these structures would be to ensure public safety and to enable sustainable land development, through interregional cooperation and the networking of research establishments, SMEs and local authorities in the regions concerned.
I would like to thank the rapporteur for having approved my amendments to this end and I reassure him that I fully support his renewed request to the Commission to publish as soon as possible an ambitious proposal for a genuine European civil protection force.


25. 2009 discharge: ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking (


Explanations of vote
in writing. - (PT) We have here an initiative from the Republic of Finland, the aim of which is to adapt the rules on analysis files to the legislation in force.
In fact, the 2003 Protocol which entered into force in April this year modifies Title III of the Europol Convention and, particularly, the part relating to the creation of analysis files and the collection, processing, use and deletion of the personal data contained in such files.
This means that the implementing rules that were adopted will have to be amended accordingly.
This is therefore a measure which, though temporary, is necessary and appropriate.
In fact, the measure will be in force for a limited period, as all previous legislation will be repealed when the Council Decision establishing a European Police Office enters into force.
(DE) Mr President, I voted for this resolution but there is one point that I should like to highlight - the reference to the creation of a European protection force. We have a tendency, here in the European Parliament, to react to specific events by calling immediately for the creation of a new institution or the establishment of a new position.
In this case, the point must be clearly made, once again, that responsibility for dealing with natural disasters simply cannot and should not be taken out of the Member States' hands: on the contrary, it is primarily their responsibility, and it lies within their authority, to take preventive measures and to ensure that fire services have the best possible equipment and training so that they can combat disasters effectively. In exceptional cases only, in the event of extreme catastrophe, there will of course also be recourse to support and solidarity from the European Union, which will be asked to step in. The primary responsibility, however, must remain with the Member States.
(DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on natural disasters because it has been demonstrated yet again that Europe is not invulnerable in these extreme situations and that it needs the solidarity of the EU. One thing must be clear, however: greatly improved coordination is needed and the situation should not be allowed to arise where EU Member States need additional assistance from third countries because we are not in a position to provide the necessary help ourselves. The challenge for the Member States is to develop better organised aid structures, particularly where volunteers are used, for example by providing the best possible training and equipment for fire brigades.
The disposal of dead pets and wild animals is a major problem that needs to be tackled as soon as possible, both to prevent the risk of outbreaks of disease and also to reduce environmental damage.
(DE) Mr President, I too voted for the resolution, although it is my opinion that these dreadful forest fires should not be allowed to cause further bloating of the EU institutions. As I see it, neither a European civil protection agency nor a European disaster intervention force will be capable of affording effective protection against natural disasters in the European Union. They are more likely to produce increased red tape and increased costs.
What we need to do, therefore, is to improve international cooperation in order to be prepared for future natural disasters, and we need to maintain our fire services and also our woods and forests sufficiently well so that future disasters simply do not occur on this scale.
Mr President, I have to say that in my own Group's voting list this resolution on natural disasters is described as forest fires, but the natural disasters in Europe over the summer were actually wider than that and I wish to raise the issue in my own region of the worst floods in over a century. A third of a million people were without drinking water for more than a week. 4 000 homes were severely damaged and tens of thousands forced to evacuate at a total cost of EUR 150 million.
I am hoping that my government will apply for assistance from the European Commission to enable the county and the towns in my region and elsewhere in Britain to actually get some recompense for the costs that are inevitably going to fall on very narrow sections of the population.
The title of the motion for a resolution is 'natural disasters' and it has been corrected.
Mr President, I just want to echo what Mr Ford said about the natural disasters in the UK. People may not be aware, but 40 000 residential properties were flooded. Nine hundred schools have been affected. Mainline railway lines are still closed. Agricultural land has been affected, including 75% of the pea crop in the UK. In my own region of Yorkshire and the Humber, many thousands of people were affected and many are still unable to return to their properties.
What we want from the Commission, given that the UK Government has now applied for solidarity funding, is a rapid response to that application, but at the same time we need all the EU institutions to make climate change a top priority. When we have a major piece of legislation coming through this House in the next few months, I hope that colleagues will bear in mind the natural disasters of this summer and make sure that we make our contribution to tackling the long-term issue of climate change, and I hope there will be no more of these natural disasters on the scale we have seen this summer.
Mr President, I too want to support the application for funds from the European Commission. My region, the South-East of England region, suffered equally badly, especially in Oxfordshire and parts of Berkshire, and my colleague Mr Hannan and I have made an application to the European Commission for emergency funds. The reason I am standing up now is to ask the Commission to expedite the funding of relief and the restoration to normality of my region, the South-East of England.
in writing. - (FR) In voting for the resolution on the natural disasters that have occurred this summer, I wanted to express my solidarity with the families of the victims and those living in the devastated regions. This is also a message of thanks to all the professionals, volunteers and local authorities that helped to fight the fires and rescue the flood victims.
I believe that there is now an urgent need to put emergency Community aid measures, especially financial measures, in place to help regenerate the regions where there has been severe damage. We also need to restore the productive potential of the areas affected, try to encourage the creation of more jobs and take appropriate steps to offset the social costs arising from the loss of jobs and other sources of revenue.
I am still concerned at the increasing number of disasters caused by extreme weather conditions, which experts believe are largely due to the climate change that is causing global warming. I therefore urge the Commission to take steps to guarantee compliance with the Kyoto commitments and their repercussions.
in writing. - While supporting and voting for the Joint Motion for a Resolution on Natural Disasters, British Conservatives have misgivings about the creation of a "European force" (paragraph 9) since we believe that both prevention and rapid reaction capabilities should be concentrated on the resources of the Member States.
in writing. - (PT) We consider this resolution to be a good one and we propose to vote for it, but we must draw attention to the absence of any important proposals (despite several references to previous EP resolutions) and the insistence on others about which we have major doubts.
Thus, we must insist on the need to review the Solidarity Fund regulation to cover regional disasters, create mechanisms to support the people affected and assist reforestation, with due attention to the prevention of major disasters caused by climate change. There should be a public agricultural insurance scheme, financed by the European Union, to guarantee farmers a minimum income in situations of public emergency such as droughts, fires and floods.
It is essential to opt for a policy of prevention to address the problem of natural disasters particularly affecting the Mediterranean area, and to introduce radical changes in the CAP to combat the decline in small and medium-sized farms and family farms by encouraging agricultural production, biodiversity and occupation of the land.
We have doubts about the Community civil protection mechanism because it may turn out to be yet another way of removing important aspects of national sovereignty, such as the management of natural resources, particularly forest and woodland.
in writing. - (PL) For some years now we have been opening the autumn session of Parliament with discussions of the tragic consequences of natural disasters that affect Europe in the summer. Droughts, heat waves, floods and fires are devastating Europe. When we add to this the industrial catastrophes caused by forces of nature, then we see a picture of Europe whose citizens stand helplessly before the destructive power of nature.
Over 60 people died this year in the fires in Greece, many families lost everything they owned, and thousands of hectares of forests and olive-groves went up in smoke. This is a truly tragic picture. I know what such a tragedy means. My own country has been affected by floods and we have had many victims of tragic mining accidents. For this reason I would like to offer my sympathy and European solidarity to the families and loved ones of the victims of the Greek disaster as well as to the inhabitants of regions affected by the fires.
At the same time, I do not think that Europe can afford to be passive in the face of such events. This does not just mean EU financial assistance that will make it possible to rebuild the regions affected by disasters. First of all, we must prepare a more effective prevention and early warning mechanism within the EU, which, even if it does not make it possible to avoid disasters, would certainly have an impact on reducing their effects. Even though the protection of the population against disasters is the responsibility of every State, we should think about a more effective monitoring of national crisis control policies, and perhaps even about a joint rapid reaction force in the event of such disasters.
in writing. - (PT) I should like to express our deepest sorrow for the victims of the serious forest fires in the spring - particularly in Greece - and our solidarity with their families and with all those affected.
Deeds, not words, are needed now. The EU must activate the necessary financial instruments and means to meet the material needs of the people affected and to promote the social, economic and environmental recovery of the regions involved.
In the light of the points raised so far, I recall some of the proposals which we presented in 2003 and 2005 and which remain as relevant as ever:
Maintain the eligibility of regional disasters for aid under the Solidarity Fund;
Recognise natural disasters specifically affecting the Mediterranean area where more than 90% of forest fires and drought are recorded;
Create a Community programme for the protection of forest and woodland against fire;
Examine the possibility of creating an agricultural disaster fund;
Pay special attention to the least-favoured regions in the event of natural disasters.
Lastly, I should like to point out that if the funds allocated to ever-increasing military appropriations were spent instead on preventing and combating natural disasters and on recovery in the areas affected, the incidence and consequences of such disasters would be significantly reduced.
in writing. - (FR) At the end of August, Greece experienced its worst natural disaster ever. The first partial toll of the huge fires that swept through large areas of the Peloponnese was 63 dead, over 40 000 head of cattle burnt to death, 250 000 olive trees burnt and hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest gone up in smoke.
The three days of national mourning announced by the Prime Minister, Kostas Karamanlis, cannot cover up for the total failure of the State to protect its citizens and come to the aid of villagers surrounded by flames, in a country where scorching summers and fire risks are a common occurrence.
Everywhere there was evidence not just of undermanning and equipment shortages, but also of the failure to plan ahead and to coordinate operations. Like the previous PASOK governments, the New Democracy government did nothing to prevent the scale and horror of the fires. With a total lack of scruple and for purely political reasons, the Prime Minister announced, even as the fires were breaking out all over Greece, that the general elections would take place as planned. In support of the Greeks who have suffered as victims of their politicians, let us hope that in future irresponsible governments will be replaced by responsible governments.
in writing. - I voted in favour of the resolution on the summer's natural disasters and particularly welcome the existence of the EU's Solidarity Fund, which is available to help Member States deal with the aftermath of such disasters. It is a useful expression of solidarity that genuinely helps EU countries and citizens in moments of great need.
in writing. - (IT) The terrible fires which struck Greece and southern Italy in particular this summer, leaving victims in their wake and destroying thousands of hectares of woodland and agricultural land, again highlight the urgent need for better coordination of rapid reaction measures by Member States' civil protection forces.
To that end, it is now clear that a European Civil Protection Agency needs to be set up to coordinate and manage measures to eradicate or prevent the causes of disasters.
That Agency - which the writer has proposed that the Commission set up on a number of occasions, on the basis of the positive experience of the US Federal Emergency Management Agency - would not just be responsible for combating the devastating fires that cause enormous damage every year in the Mediterranean countries, but would also take swift action to tackle the emergencies following on from all kinds of disasters brought about by natural events, such as the floods from which Bulgaria has recently suffered, or man-made events.
It has to be stressed that disasters may be supranational in nature, and Europe should not just rely solely on the generosity of volunteers or on the competences and resources of the particular State that has been affected, but should have enough human and financial resources and appropriate equipment to enable swift action to be taken.
in writing. - (PT) For the sake of consistency, in view of what we have said in the past and what we expect from the European Solidarity Fund, I shall clearly be voting for this resolution. But this vote is not just about consistency.
European integration, among countless other advantages, has the advantage of scale and the economies of scale that come with solidarity. Without in any way diminishing the responsibilities of Member States and their governments, it is possible and desirable through an effort of solidarity at European level to face the disasters that are caused by nature and its increasing unpredictability rather than by any mistakes in the management of the land.
However, while insisting on this point, we cannot leave the human factor out of account, when a criminal starts a fire or when a plan for the land opens the way for such disasters or exacerbates their consequences. I therefore believe it is time to review many of our policies, particularly in the area of forest and woodland management and rural development but not only in that area: we also need to look at our environmental measures, so as to prevent Man from becoming even more destructive than the destructive force of Nature.
in writing. - (FR) Over 60 dead and 184 000 hectares of land gone up in smoke: that is the toll of the fires that swept through Greece at the end of August.
Europe was not a passive observer. Solidarity came fully into play through the 'European rapid reaction instrument' that we voted for last March, a joint civil protection system in which 30 States make resources such as Canadairs, tankers and qualified personnel ('green berets') available to countries suffering man-made or natural disasters.
I am not fanatical about the systematic transfer of competences to Europe, but I do believe that a Community civil protection system is worthwhile, because natural disasters know no borders. I have said so several times in this House, especially at the time of the disastrous fires in Portugal in 2003.
The European Union urgently needs to demonstrate its benefits. It must serve as a model, so that there is solidarity between all the citizens of Europe, and not just in this particular disaster.
in writing. - (FR) The catastrophic storm in December 1999, floods in Central Europe in 2002, fires in Portugal and Spain in 2004, and now fires in Greece in which people have lost their lives, and also in Romania and Bulgaria: each time there is a strong emotional response, each time Europe sympathises, each time the Commission promises to improve its solidarity and its aid mechanisms.
Right here, on 18 January 2000 in fact, I called for the creation of a public safety Eurocorps, and the idea was taken up by Commissioner Barnier in his May 2006 report.
Right here in this Parliament, we have called in vain for the renewal of the 1992 regulation under which funding would be provided for fire-prevention equipment such as firebreaks, access roads and monitoring systems.
Now we must not wait for the next disaster, for more victims. Let us put the Barnier proposal into practice. There is a military Eurocorps. Surely Europe can set up a public safety Eurocorps for itself, to protect its citizens against natural and accidental risks?
Then we should ask Member States to draw up plans to prevent forest fires and help them, encourage them, to finance these through a specific financing instrument similar to that in the old 1992 regulation.
When we are facing climate change, it is in the interests of the whole of Europe to introduce ambitious prevention policies.
(SK) As far as the regions are concerned, given that their role in the legislative process means that they are often directly responsible for implementing and enforcing EU law, the efforts to achieve better regulation are extremely important. Bodies at different levels of national and local government, economic and social partners, representatives of civil society and non-governmental organisations must - as far as possible - participate actively in the consultation process on European law-making.
Equally important is their role in the assessing the influence and effect of this legislation on the Member States. This will increase the quality, clarity and transparency of the regulations being prepared, while taking account of local and regional conditions and differences. In this way we will also prevent wrong interpretations as well as delays in the transposition and implementation of legislation.
(SK) Within the scope of my parliamentary mandate I come across citizens' complaints that during the transposition of EU legislation some Member States impose on them obligations that go beyond the requirements of the laws in question. The citizens are afflicted by needless administrative burdens that make them antipathetic towards the EU legislation that is being adopted.
I voted in favour of the report on better regulation in the European Union, which incorporated my amendments, as it presents a great opportunity to approach European legislation from a new angle. European laws are drafted with the aim of simplifying the lives of EU citizens and are not meant to burden them; that is why they have to be drafted in a simple and intelligible way, with the emphasis on quality not quantity. At the same time, if the relevant parties at all levels are informed about the transposition of EU legislation efficiently and in time, this will ensure that the citizens have greater confidence in the European project.
in writing. - I voted for this report on better regulation in the EU. I strongly support regulation being done in a least-cost and most efficient way, to help the development of a more competitive European economy and deliver better social, environmental and economic outcomes at the same time.
in writing. - British Conservatives believe it is unfortunate that paragraph three appears vague in seeming to support "any" initiative in the enforcement of Community law.
British Conservatives support the enforcement of Community law but wish to analyse and consider any initiative proposed by the Commission. Otherwise, we believe that this report is an excellent exposition.
in writing. - I voted for this report on how EU law- and regulation-making can best be done. More effective and streamlined regulatory and legal frameworks will deliver EU-wide improvements in social and economic outcomes, generate more jobs and improve our quality of life.
in writing. - (PT) The report states that simplifying the legislative environment to ensure the clarity, efficacy and quality of legislation is an essential prerequisite for attaining the objective of better law-making which, in turn, is a priority for the European Union. In the meantime, it states that some 500 new legislative initiatives (200 of which in 2007 alone) have been included in a separate rolling programme specifically dedicated to codifications, showing the bureaucratic complexity of the European Union.
It also notes that the simplification being promoted at European level should be accompanied by appropriate simplification at national level to ensure that the advantages of Community simplification are not undermined by national rules or technical barriers.
However, a distinction must be made between purely bureaucratic matters and cases where rights may be called into question.
We agree with the proposal that the Commission once and for all adopt recasting as a standard legislative technique so that, for each initiative, the text can be available in its entirety, also where there are specific amendments, providing a clear indication of the new parts and those which are unchanged, thereby increasing the legibility and transparency of Community legislation.
in writing. - I voted for this resolution on better regulation. As a socialist, I have no difficulty in putting further burdens on industry to protect health and safety, the environment or raise the minimum wage. Yet I want value for money. The End of Vehicle Life Directive that came into force some years ago was estimated by the British Cabinet Office to have cost the economy GBP 400 million (EUR 590 million) while providing environmental and social benefits at a level of GBP 100 million (EUR 150 million) per annum. If these figures are anything like accurate, this directive was a political and environmental failure. We want costs to industry (and society) where there is a large multiplier as to benefits with costs of GBP 100 million providing EUR 500 million in benefits. Implementing the recommendations for in future cost benefit analysis of proposed legislation will do exactly that.
in writing. - (SV) We believe that traditional legislation and the open method of coordination can live side-by-side and that both are still needed. We do not therefore share the view that the open method of coordination must be used only in exceptional cases. It should also continue to be used when harmonisation is not desirable or practicable.
We do, however, share the view that the European Parliament should participate more fully when the open method of coordination is used.
in writing. - British Conservatives support the broad thrust of the Medina Ortega report, which sets clear boundaries on the promotion and use of Community law.
Concerning paragraph 18, we wish to make it clear that Conservatives do not support closer European integration but share the view that there is a current mistrust relating to the EU institutions which these proposals may help to alleviate.
in writing. - (PT) We agree with the rapporteur that the notion of non-binding legal instruments (soft law instruments) based on common practice is ambiguous and pernicious and should not be used in any documents of the Community institutions, although we disagree with other points in the report.
Such soft law instruments, which can legitimately be used as interpretative or preparatory tools for binding legislative acts, should neither be treated as legislation nor be given any norm-setting effectiveness, and it is for each country to decide on their use, in particular where they cast light on the interpretation of national measures adopted to implement them or where they are designed to supplement binding Community provisions.
Clearly, so-called non-binding legal instruments cannot be a substitute for legal acts and instruments, which are available to ensure the continuity of the legislative process. The Commission must therefore give special consideration to the effect of soft law on consumers and their possible means of redress before proposing any measure involving soft law instruments.
in writing. - (CS) This report is very important in the context of improving and simplifying the Community's legal environment. I would particularly like to stress its importance with regard to the need to strengthen the European Parliament's role in the legislative process and its importance in terms of eliminating the democratic deficit. I also fully support the desire to establish methods of consultation with the European Parliament on the adoption of so-called non-binding legal acts, especially since these acts are fairly common: they often earn attributes such as 'unclear' and 'inefficient', and their excessive use may be a manifestation of exceeding the scope of the Commission's. In addition, the public may identify the image of European 'superbureaucracy' with these acts.
Although the report recommends that soft law should not be used in official Community documents and that the distinction between dura lex and mollis lex should not be recognised, I do not consider this to be a relevant issue. The difference between binding and non-binding acts of the Community is a matter of fact and this recommendation does not change either the reality of their existence or their essence. In addition, the fact that the soft rules of secondary Community law are not legally binding does not mean that they have no legal value. Think, for example, of their importance in the interpretation of legal acts. Furthermore, if a Community body does not issue a recommendation or does not express an opinion in cases where it is obliged to do so, it can be accused of being passive. However, this last comment is a technical one and does not detract from the report as a whole.
(PL) Mr President, today we approved a report in which we carried out a review of the functioning of the European Union's common market. The common market, which consists of the free movement of persons, services, capital and goods, has encouraged significant economic growth, increased employment and improved competitiveness in the European economy.
However, to improve its functioning, existing barriers and unnecessary regulation should be abolished. It is still the case, unfortunately, that some countries restrict the movement of workers from the new Member States. It is also important to inform our citizens, investors and businessmen about the benefits and opportunities presented by the common internal market.
A unified market, without boundaries or restrictions, is the fundamental pillar of the European Union. The common market brings our whole community closer together and binds us together, introducing transparent principles for competition and encouraging the growth of entrepreneurship. The common market must, however, take into account social cohesion, employment issues, protection for the environment and for the consumer. A particularly important issue are measures to reduce the administrative burden in the European Union.
Mr President, paragraph 16 of the Toubon report regrets that insufficient emphasis was placed on the potential contribution of nuclear power. My vote against this phrase is on the assumption that it was referring to nuclear fission, with which I and many others have a problem in terms of the disposal of radioactive waste and the legacy of decommissioning. Any emphasis on the potential contribution from nuclear fusion, however, while still some way in the future, would deserve support.
Paragraph 32 refers to harmonisation in the area of taxation, amongst others, and also urges the Commission to push ahead with its proposals concerning a common consolidated corporate tax base. The Irish delegation of the PPE-DE Group is firmly opposed to any harmonisation of direct taxation, including corporate taxation, and we will continue to reject any proposals which weaken that position. So, despite many excellent points in the Toubon report, my colleagues and I had to abstain.
in writing. - (SV) We consider that the report has a well-balanced view of the internal market and in particular welcome the provisions on the social and environmental impact assessments which must form the basis of new policy initiatives. We do not, however, share the view on the contribution of nuclear power and believe that the report is unclear on tax matters. For example, we are uncertain about the initiatives that the Commission must take as regards excise duties and VAT and point out that tax levels fall within the competence of the Member States. We are also uncertain about which trade defence measures are referred to in the report. Even though we had wished to see stronger provisions on social clauses, we have voted in favour of the report as a whole because we welcome the review and the broad thrust of the report.
in writing. - The first 10 years of the internal market added EUR 877 billion to the EU economy. It helped to create 2.5 million jobs. These facts speak for themselves that the single market is working.
As a trading nation, Ireland can only benefit from a fully functioning single market. Ensuring competitiveness is a vital element in the policy mix of a fully functioning single market. I do not accept that the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) will not hamper EU competitiveness as proposed in the Toubon report. The CCCTB is the backdoor to tax harmonisation. It is vital that Member Sates have the flexibility to use taxation in different ways and at different rates to achieve their social and economic objectives - tax harmonisation would prevent this.
The Toubon report contains many favourable points with regard to the knowledge society for a sustainable EU, for an EU open to the world and for a well-regulated EU. However, I abstained on the final vote because I firmly believe that the EU is best served by promoting tax competition, not tax harmonisation.
in writing. - (FR) I voted against the report on the Single Market Review: tackling barriers and inefficiencies through better implementation and enforcement.
I do not agree with the approach by the rapporteur, Mr Toubon, in which opening up to competition in the Single Market would not be subject to any limits or social regulation. I also voted against the further liberalisation of the postal service advocated in the report and I am sorry that the amendments on social and fiscal harmonisation were rejected.
Furthermore, I deplore the new reference to the introduction of an unrestricted transatlantic single market and stress that priority should be given to safeguarding and promoting the European social model.
In my opinion, completion of the Single Market should be regulated by guarantees of social protection for the citizens of Europe, which is not proposed in the Toubon report, the only European Parliament contribution to the Single Market Review.
in writing. - (FR) The French Socialists have voted in favour of the Toubon report on the Single Market Review and its adaptation to the twenty-first century, since it refers to important aspects that are sometimes ignored when discussing the completion of the Single Market. Thus social and territorial cohesion and up-to-date services of general interest go hand in hand with the completion of the Single Market. We have, nonetheless, voted against paragraph 24 on the liberalisation of postal services. The report also lays emphasis on consumer protection, which is closely linked to the completion of the European Single Market and has to be guaranteed. Lastly, the environmental aspect has to be included in the requirements for the internal market, which is an asset for the European Union provided that those general principles are observed.
One important point in the report is SMEs and facilitating their access to the European internal market as a whole, in view of the vital role that they and the craft industries play in European employment and innovation.
I particularly support the determination expressed by the rapporteur to take active and effective steps against counterfeiting, which is a real plague on the European economy.
in writing. - (PT) This report has a very strong neoliberal bias, showing once again that the European Parliament is bent on ever more liberalisation, more returns on capital for business and financial groups that are already recording profits of 35% or more.
So, after a eulogy on the great benefits that the Single Market delivers (to big business and financial groups), we are told that there are still protectionist attitudes and that it is essential to combat them and to move forward in other areas, such as financial services, tax policy, transport, postal services and energy, which are not yet fully liberalised and integrated.
By distorting reality, they seek to mask the real effects of the Single Market, such as the increase in costs, the reduction in services and the quality of services, the job losses, to name but a few.
This report is an attempt to encourage further liberalisation of public services, further transfers of political power from national to transnational level, and further attacks on consumers' and workers' rights, and we must therefore vote against it.
in writing. - (SV) The June List shares the rapporteur's general position, that the internal market is one of the EU's greatest success stories and that it must be further developed and improved.
We are opposed, however, to many of the specific proposals made in the report. We strongly oppose the provisions on tax harmonisation, the welcome given to the euro, and the need for the Member States to liberalise postal services, which are a public service to be regulated first and foremost by each Member State.
Lastly, we agree that the legal situation as regards services of general interest is unclear. We have chosen to vote against Amendment 12/rev tabled by the PPE-DE and Amendment 4 tabled by the PSE, however, because the long-term result of the provision made in those amendments will be that further power is transferred to the European Court of Justice.
On the basis of the above arguments, we have chosen to vote against the report in the final vote.
in writing. - British Conservatives have been at the forefront of the campaign to create a fully functioning and effective single market. We welcome the Toubon report and its emphatic support for continued action in making the single market dynamic, outward-looking and flexible, while at the same time ensuring that it delivers real benefits for citizens.
In that context, British Conservatives have argued that tax policy must remain under the complete control of EU Member States, and that 'one size fits all' policies at EU level threaten the economic dynamism and global competitiveness that are so critical to Europe's future. We have therefore voted against calls for a common consolidated corporate tax base.
in writing. - (SV) Even though the report includes some positive provisions I have chosen to vote against it. Aside from the provisions on nuclear power which I cannot support, the report criticises excise duties and minimum harmonisation in consumer affairs, which could in future have negative repercussions for both Swedish alcohol policy and consumer protection. I welcome the review but wanted to see stronger provisions on social clauses and I believe that the report is not as balanced as it should have been.
in writing. - (FR) I voted for the report by Mr Toubon on the Single Market Review and I support the positive approach of the rapporteur to one of the most important pillars of the European Union. The four freedoms that make up the Single Market - the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital - must be further encouraged and developed to ensure that everyone benefits fully from the advantages of the Single Market.
As regards the free movement of services, I think it is a great pity that more emphasis has not been placed on the importance of the country of origin principle, which has already been severely undermined by the services directive, in the achievement of a real Single Market and in the creation of jobs.
I also believe that observance of the country of origin principle for VAT on distance selling and e-commerce is the only viable basis for a coherent and transparent tax framework to allow the free movement of goods.
In my view, tax competition is in no way an obstacle to the completion of the Single Market; on the contrary, it encourages economic operators to defend their freedoms in regard to free movement within the Single Market.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report on the Single Market Review which the Commission is working on. In particular I welcome the focus on improving regulation throughout the Union, and the focus on providing legal certainty for services of general interest.
The Danish members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament - Mr Rasmussen, Mrs Thomsen, Mrs Schaldemose, Mr Jørgensen and Mr Christensen - have voted against paragraph 18, which concerns the Commission's review of the consumer acquis. The delegation believes that minimum harmonisation is necessary whilst such great disparities remain in the level of consumer protection in the Member States.
The delegation also disagrees with paragraph 26, which states that the present VAT and excise duty systems are a barrier to the completion of the Single Market. The delegation believes that the wording, among other things, conflicts with the Danish system of excise duties.
However, the delegation wishes to emphasise its support for better implementation of the Single Market.
in writing. - I wish to explain that I cannot support paragraph 32 of the report, which calls for broad tax harmonisation, or the harmonisation of corporate taxes, nor recital O, which criticises these Member States that guard their prerogatives in regard to tax issues. Member States must be free to determine their own taxation policy as part of national fiscal policy. In regard to paragraph 40, part 2, I will vote in favour of this because I have concerns that on a number of issues Member States use EU legislation to 'gold plate' their own national laws, and then blame the EU for any subsequent criticism that may come their way.
I will also vote for paragraph 16, part 2, which states insufficient attention has been given to nuclear energy as a tool with which to tackle climate change in a balanced way and would hope that as a result a discussion could start based on facts and not on fears with regard to the role that nuclear energy can bring to climate change as part of a well balanced energy policy.
in writing. - I voted against this report because amendments favouring tax harmonisation were passed and included in the report. I am resolutely opposed to any measure favouring harmonisation of taxes across the EU. There is a constant attempt to slip these measures in as amendments, and even in the body of reports, and I will oppose them at every opportunity. The Commission should be more forthright about its intentions on this subject coming up to the referendum on the Reform Treaty.


1. Draft amending budget No 5/2010: OLAF and the review of own resources (


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes


Compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Voggenhuber, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Commission's legislative proposals: methodology for systematic and rigorous monitoring.
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at prime media time this morning, in the course of the debate on the Berlin Declaration, we celebrated the Union as a common system of law, and we all agreed that what holds this system together at heart is human dignity and fundamental rights and freedoms.
At a late hour this evening we are now discussing the everyday business of this common system of law: the enforcement - an arduous task - and protection of these fundamental rights and freedoms. Those who have long been working on the everyday business of fundamental rights in Europe will be aware of three irritations. Firstly, for the achievement of its economic and monetary-policy objectives, the Union has hard law, specific objectives, penalties if need be, large amounts of money and tough action; whereas fundamental rights and freedoms at European level have only soft law.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is still not binding. Some Member States are even calling for its removal from the Constitution. The EU is not a member of the European Commission of Human Rights. Organisations such as Europol, Eurojust and Frontex do not fall under the European Convention on Human Rights. Police cooperation is still not Community law, and it evades scrutiny by national parliaments and the European Parliament. A grey area of fundamental rights is emerging in Europe.
The second irritation - which I am seeing more and more in my debates on the Constitution - is that cracks have emerged in the original confidence of the European public in the will and ability of this Union to enforce fundamental rights and freedoms uncompromisingly. The CIA affair, the illegal kidnappings, the illegal overflights and the lack of cooperation by governments have been contributory factors, as have the negative judgments of the European Court of Justice on the transfer of passenger data and SWIFT bank data and the lack of legal bases for Union action. All of this has dented the original confidence of the public in the will and ability of the Union to protect these fundamental rights uncompromisingly.
The third irritation concerns the Commission's monitoring. Commissioner, I do not know how often this House is supposed to carry on demanding that the Commission's work and proposals on the protection of fundamental rights be more systematic, less restrictive, more public; or that the Commission increase the involvement of civil society and of independent experts and organisations. We did so in the report on Article 7; we did so in the reports on the Human Rights Agency; we did so with regard to the accession treaties. Yet the Commission gives the impression of being unsure, indecisive, in this field. Its choices are often incomprehensible, and its pressure on the Council and the Member States is often insufficient. We welcome the procedure for enforcing the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Commission's legislative proposals: it represents progress. Nevertheless, it is insufficient, and it suffers from all the things this House has pointed out so many times already.
Checking against the Charter of Fundamental Rights cannot be smuggled in via social, environmental and economic criteria, but must be a criterion in itself. Every one of the Commission's legislative initiatives must be checked against the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and this checking must be substantiated and documented in all cases. How often have we demanded - as we are doing again - that the Commission show greater respect for the particular responsibility of Parliament as advocate of the European public for the protection of fundamental rights? We did this when we dealt with Article 7, the Agency and the accession negotiations. We called for increased involvement of NGOs, international organisations and the Human Rights Agency. How much longer do we need to go on doing this? How much longer do we need to go on demanding continuous dialogue between the institutions?
The outstanding part of the Commission's proposal is its talk of the development of a fundamental-rights culture. We share this ambition and support it. Yet this development requires a systematic, continuous, open dialogue between the institutions; it requires reports; it requires that the institutions be given the right to point out abuses and wrong turns in the Member States. It is also essential that the Commission's monitoring system be extended to the field of intergovernmental cooperation and to the comitology system.
Commissioner, we are repeating our demands. We are doing so at a late hour, without public exposure, without anything. I do think, however, that it is time the Commission responded to Parliament's wishes and demands in this field.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I warmly welcome this report and wish to thank Parliament for its positive reception of the Commission's communication of 27 April 2005 on a methodology to check fundamental rights compliance in the Commission's own legislative proposals.
Let me briefly recall why the Commission adopted this communication on a methodology for compliance with fundamental rights, the first product of the Commissioners' Group on Fundamental Rights, Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities.
We, the Union's institutions, must at all times show that we cherish fundamental rights, not only in words but in actions and above all in our own legislative action. This is crucial for the Union to be credible and legitimate in the eyes of its citizens. The Charter, which the institutions subscribed to in 2000, must encourage us to enhance respect for individual freedom in all its facets. This includes classic civil liberties to be upheld, precisely in our current efforts to combat terrorism. It also includes economic and social rights and, last but not least, the new generation rights such as data protection, good administration and bio-ethical guarantees. But, briefly, it must become clear to our citizens that the European Union locks a true fundamental rights culture into its own policy-making. It is therefore a matter of great satisfaction and encouragement for the Commission to see that our communication of 2005 has found such a prominent echo in your resolution of today and that this Parliament makes the same commitment on its part to include internal rules for monitoring fundamental rights. Taking rights seriously must be a common leitmotif for all institutions throughout the EU's legislative process.
I also wish to thank Parliament for some constructive practical suggestions which the Voggenhuber report offers to the Commission in order to develop further our human rights compliance methodology. As you know, we have scheduled a review of our methodology to be launched later this year, and the Commission will present Parliament with the results of this review. The Commission is very keen to share its experience with Parliament in that respect.
In the context of this review, the Commission will of course pay utmost attention to your suggestions. For instance, we have noted that we should refer not only to the Charter as a point of reference, but also to European and international human rights conventions, and that Parliament emphasises the Commission's right to withdraw its proposal where changes are made in the legislative process which would violate a fundamental right. We are also open to giving even greater visibility to fundamental rights in our impact assessments.
Finally, a major theme of the planned review will be how to involve the newly-established Fundamental Rights Agency when preparing new policy initiatives which are sensitive to fundamental rights.
As regards the call for a new annual report from the Commission on fundamental rights in the EU, we think that it could be useful to have a yearly general discussion on this issue. This could take place in the context of our annual discussion relating to progress in the area of freedom, security and justice. We are less convinced on having a new formal, specific annual report, in particular since the recently established Fundamental Rights Agency will, as perhaps its most important task, adopt such an annual report on fundamental rights issues within the EU. That report, and thus our new Fundamental Rights Agency, should receive all the public attention it deserves. That report should therefore be at the centre of discussions on fundamental rights issues in all three institutions and we should avoid any duplication of it.
But, with that caveat, I would like to say how much we commend this report on its content and how seriously we take it.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate the Commission on this new approach to the protection of fundamental rights. I should like to thank the Commissioner for having informed us this evening that a substantial part of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs' idea will be transposed by the Commission into the amended text.
We hope that the European Parliament will become ever more involved in protecting these rights and, above all, we are pleased to support the idea of continuous monitoring of all the legislative activities that will lead to such protection, which, as the Commissioner was saying, could culminate in a final report. However, this becomes scarcely important if the monitoring is incisive, constant and continuous.
Secondly, as regards the involvement of the newly established Fundamental Rights Agency, I believe - as has already been said in committee - that its activities also need to be diversified, in order to prevent any pointless overlapping or duplication of effort. I therefore believe that the full involvement of the agency, and of non-governmental organisations and associations, as the rapporteur was saying, should become ever more meaningful and significant, given that there are some very important associations that concern themselves with the protection of human rights.
Finally, in our opinion, systematic internal checks should be implemented at all levels during the stage of drafting legislation. I therefore hope that these suggestions contained within the rapporteur's clear, lucid report - qualities that he has illustrated this evening - become part of the activities of the Commission itself.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (HU) Respect for our fundamental rights and for all human rights, and their implementation, is under all circumstances the cornerstone of every European democratic state, governed by the rule of law. They cannot be circumvented or overriden. It is when problematic, conflictual situations arise that it becomes especially clear that we need always to confirm anew these now seemingly self-evident rights, and that their observance is not automatic, and we need to struggle time and again for our fundamental rights to be respected.
The respect for and defence of our fundamental human rights was the starting point and the achievement of the European Union, but till now the declaration has been accompanied by few concrete legal and practical measures. One of the concrete achievements is the birth of the Charter of Fundamental Rights itself, and although the Charter is far from complete, nevertheless adding legal force to it - let us say by subscribing to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights - would represent a much-needed step forward in the Community's defence of fundamental rights. The problems involving human rights that appear daily, and the complexity of these issues, demonstrate that there is much to be done in this area.
For this reason, I can only welcome Mr Voggenhuber's report, that is, the initiative of the Commission, since it draws the attention of all of us to the key question that the effective respect of fundamental rights begins when respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights features among the Commission's legislative proposals, when regular and strict controls of human rights compliance have been developed, and when the Fundamental Rights Agency is able to work effectively. And although there are a few paragraphs which are subject to legal debate, as shadow rapporteur I support the report, as will the People's Party at tomorrow's vote.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I confess, in a minute and a half, that, every time this House is asked to debate human rights, one has the worrying feeling that the debate will end up being nothing more than a rhetorical exercise. I say this while also having in mind the fact that, although one month ago this House debated the outcome of a year's work by the Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners, this month neither the Commission nor the Council have in any way acknowledged the work done by the European Parliament and submitted for their opinion.
We do want to see the same thing happen with the precious communication before us which, as Mr Voggenhuber points out, is intended to clarify and enhance what has been standard practice in this House since 2001, namely guaranteeing the compatibility of all the legislative processes developed by the institutions with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Recognition for this practice was a long time coming, and we hope that its implementation will not be shelved.
One point must be made clear: we are asking the Commission for an annual report, to be submitted to Parliament, which summarises the implementation of fundamental rights in European policies. It seems rather strange to us that annual reports on the application of Community law and on competition policy should be planned, but not a report on fundamental rights for the Commission to submit to the European Parliament.
We also take this view because of the impact that such policies have on 500 million European citizens and because we believe that this is a sensitive issue for which the European institutions must take responsibility if they are to restore dignity and substance to the human rights on which we are often asked to focus.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all, I will not dwell on Mr Voggenhuber's excellent report except to say that my group will support it wholeheartedly.
In principle, we very much welcome the Commission's proposals, but my problem is that they risk becoming the emperor's clothes. They are full of good intentions but there is a big risk that they will be passive, bureaucratic exercises, because there is such a gap between reality and the proposals in your paper, Commissioner.
I have a problem, Mr Mandelson. How do I explain your wonderful proposals to my voters, when the Commission does not speak out when a minister for education in an EU Member State is on a crusade against homosexuals? Why does the Commission not speak out in the case of the CIA flights, as Mr Fava just reminded us? Why does the Commission not speak out in the case of the flagrant discrimination and abominable treatment of Roma people? There are so many cases where the Commission is passive and even in some cases hiding behind the rules. Lately, every time we ask about these cases we are told: 'just wait and see when the agency for fundamental rights is set up'. Commissioner, why does the Commission, the champion of fundamental rights, as Mr Barroso promised us in October 2004, not seek the limits of its powers? Why do you hide behind the rules? People expect you to protect and promote their fundamental rights. I, too, would like the annual report, but frankly I consider it much more important that you should act and speak out. That is political leadership.
One of President Barroso's favourite phrases is 'the Europe of results' and I very much like that phrase. But why is it restricted to the economic area? Why is it not applied to the area of fundamental rights? Soon we will be celebrating 50 years of European integration. After the Second World War the idea was that people would never have to fear for their lives again, that everybody would be free, safe, equal and live in a democracy. So fundamental rights should be the first priority of the Commission and that should be the meaning of the 'Europe of results'. I hope that this Commission in the next two years will create that Europe of results and of fundamental rights. I see this proposal only as a basis for that, but I expect action now.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been around for over six years now and is vital as regards respect for citizens' rights, yet it is still not legally binding. We can only hope, therefore, that the Council Presidency succeeds in giving the constitutional process new momentum, as there is no doubt that the individual rights of EU citizens belong to the substance of the Constitution; the Charter is its core substance.
In the light of this, in particular, we cannot but support the Commission's initiative. We are talking here about the development of a genuine fundamental-rights culture. I should like to declare my express support for this approach and highlight two issues in this connection.
Firstly, systematic monitoring of fundamental rights must at all events mean focusing on the specific fundamental rights concerned in each case, and also evidencing this checking in detail in every legislative proposal.
Secondly, scrutiny to identify any legal errors in weighing up the respective importance of the freedom of the individual and the requirements of the public interest is insufficient on its own. What we need is an optimisation in terms of fundamental rights, which means a political analysis to ascertain which of the various solutions that weigh up these interests correctly produces the best balance between determination of the objective and restriction of fundamental rights.
Such an approach could characterise the fundamental-rights culture of which the Commission speaks, and this way strengthen the identity of the European Union as a union of citizens.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, in principle, guaranteeing the fundamental rights of all citizens is of major importance, although we have different opinions on how this should be done. It is striking that the European Union is once again seeking to create a distinct profile for itself by means of fundamental rights. Meanwhile, the Union now has a Charter and a Bureau for fundamental rights, neither of which have been established unanimously.
A reasonable minority, not least in this Parliament, have major objections to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the way in which it is being shaped further. Could I draw your attention to the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is an unnecessary duplication of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? The same, in fact, applies to the Fundamental Rights Agency. Both duplications are avoidable, and citizens' rights would not thereby be affected.
This is something the European Court for Human Rights here in Strasbourg can guarantee, provided it can count on the necessary workforce and financial resources. Moreover, it respects the individuality of the national legal system. This strikes me as a sufficient guarantee for our freedoms and fundamental rights. I would therefore argue in favour of the Union's functions in the area of fundamental rights being limited. We should allow the Union to join the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; this will no doubt be followed up by a debate on compliance with, and monitoring of, the fundamental rights in respect of the Commission's legislative function.
Mr President, colleagues: you lost. The Charter of Fundamental Rights would have been given legal force by the European constitution but that constitution, it seems necessary periodically to remind this House, was rejected. 55% of French voters and 62% of Dutch voters said 'no'. Simply to disregard those results and carry on as if the Charter were in force would be outrageous, yet that is precisely what you propose to do. Indeed, it is precisely what you are doing. As the Voggenhuber report cheerfully admits, the various institutions of the EU are proceeding as if the Charter were already justiceable. Indeed, this report may be summarised as an attempt to regularise an illegal and undemocratic extension of EU jurisdiction.
I hope we can take it as read that every one of us here believes in basic civil liberties. We all support freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of assembly and so on. But some of us object to the way in which these vital matters are being lifted out of the hands of our accountable national governments and subjected to the whims of European judges.
The EU is wanting, not in its respect for basic human rights, but in its respect for democracy. Paper entitlements, unaccompanied by democratic accountability, are meaningless. The principles adumbrated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights could equally be found in, say, the constitution of East Germany or that of the Soviet Union, but as the peoples of those unhappy states knew, written charters are worthless if you cannot hold your rulers to account.
Do we really need to learn that lesson again in the EU?
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Voggenhuber on his report.
Saint Teresa used to say that the devil is the detail. It is obvious that the European Commission is not one day going to approve a piece of legislation that blatantly violates fundamental rights: nobody expects that. But, for example, we have situations, as in the case of restrictions on liquids in aeroplanes, where comitology has been used in a shameful way to impose, through a secret piece of regulation - and I emphasise, a secret piece of regulation - duties on citizens which cannot be reviewed by any court in Europe, national or European.
This is a case of the European Commission not being a witness to a violation of fundamental rights but itself legislating in a way that goes against respect for fundamental rights and the most basic rules on transparency. These things happen, so let us stop the rhetoric and begin applying to ourselves what we pretend to apply to everybody else, to our neighbours and to our partners throughout the world.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the need for legislative proposals always to be compatible with fundamental rights may be a good route to a serious resumption of the debate on the real European constitutional process, with no clumsy attempts to revive a treaty that died on impact with the public. I believe that, on the eve of the imminent and still mysterious Berlin Declaration, this may be a serious way of re-opening the debate and of making Europe stand for something once again, and for this I am grateful to Mr Voggenhuber.
In recent years, we have witnessed CIA flights and abductions by the CIA on European territory, the systematic monitoring of Europeans and the violation of their privacy, and the detainment of migrants in inhuman and degrading places. All of this serves as the clearest example of the difficulty faced by the European Union when it comes to protecting fundamental rights. We believe that the EU's legislative proposals should always be fully compatible not only with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but also with the other European and international instruments in the field of fundamental rights: I am thinking of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of the European Social Charter.
We feel that this is a good way to start a thorough debate aimed at the revival of Europe.
(PT) Mr President, fundamental rights are the very backbone of all of the EU's political action. Since the Treaty of Rome, democracy has been a condition of this union of nations and the basis of consensus. Democracy undeniably implies that all institutions must adhere to an ethic of rights; indeed, it is an ethic of rights that gave birth to democracy.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, formalised in the Treaty of Nice, is simply the clear expression of this genetic matrix of the EU, thus dispelling any possible doubt or ambiguity.
The EU has always had an intrinsic connection to fundamental rights, and it is only through this connection that the Union has been able to true to itself. The methodology of self-monitoring that the Commission has brought before us - featuring respect for fundamental rights as an integral part of monitoring the legality of legislative proposals and a completely new assessment of the impact of this legislation on fundamental rights - is therefore welcome. This will blow fresh air and bring transparency into the offices of the Commission. This is a more structural and more positive solution than the new fundamental rights agency, because this method proposed by the Commission presupposes that human rights cut across the Union's policies, all the Union's policies. This is its strength.
In a democratic society, the monitoring of rights begins with the institutions monitoring their own political practice. Nevertheless, the virtues of this methodology are limited, as it does not encompass the Council of the EU or decisions on intergovernmental cooperation, in relation to which the Commission does not take initiatives. If one were to name issues that nowadays lack specific attention from the point of view of a culture of rights, it would be issues under the third pillar - that of criminal law and criminal procedure.
Terrorist threats and public concern give rise to the temptation in the Member States to drift towards a disproportionate preoccupation with security, which sometimes oversteps the boundaries of freedom and justice. The Commission's method has opened the door, but the window must also be open.
(DE) Mr President, I should like to start by congratulating Mr Voggenhuber on his report and also declaring my support for him in his fight for more rights for our citizens. As a representative of the business community, I have to say that it is true that the rights of the European Parliament and the other European institutions have been fully enforced in the field of the internal market. In that field, we have been able to implement a rationalisation process for our 27 Member States and 500 million citizens and ensure that, rather than 27 different regulations, a single one applies, which was adopted through constructive cooperation.
I should also like to emphasise, however, that the establishment of an equally solid basis in the field of fundamental rights is a genuine concern of mine. When Mr Hannan says that France and the Netherlands voted against the Constitution, I can only counter this by saying that a direct consultative referendum in Spain produced a clear majority in favour of this project. In addition, if we add up the population groups of the three countries, this makes a clear majority.
We have the support of most Europeans. The vast majority in this House have pronounced their support for it, and Europe's governments have unanimously declared themselves in favour. How many more votes do we need before we achieve democracy in Europe, rather than stopping at geographical boundaries and measuring democracy in kilometres when we should be judging it by its principles?
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.