Moratorium on the death penalty (debate)
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the moratorium on the death penalty.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to talk to you about today is one of the most fundamental components of the European Union's policy on human rights, and the many motions for a resolution tabled by the various groups in your House indicate just how live an issue this is.
Taking as its basis the guidelines for the EU's policy in respect of third states and the death penalty as adopted in 1998 by its Council of Ministers, the European Union is campaigning worldwide for the abolition of the death penalty under all circumstances, and the declaration of moratoria has for some years been a consistent feature of that campaign - albeit not as its main objective, but as an intermediate stage on the way to the practice's abolition once and for all.
The European Union will continue its policy of protection for human rights under German Presidency and will therefore be arguing forcefully for moratoria on the death penalty and for its permanent abolition.
That means that we will, on the one hand, continue to pursue the debate on the issue of principle - not only on bilateral contact but also in multilateral fora, the United Nations in particular - whilst also, on the other hand, continuing to be pro-active in approaching those countries that are at a turning point - that is to say, those in which either positive or negative trends are perceptible as regards the death penalty - and to bring influence to bear on them by means, that is, of very definite demarches in many urgent individual cases.
I am aware that your House has been a constant advocate for this policy and am glad to be able to say that we have already, together, achieved a great deal. The fact that, in something like two-thirds of the world's countries, the death penalty has been legally abolished or is in practice a dead letter is attributable to the sustained efforts of all active campaigners against the practice, and I am happy to be able to stress that active involvement in the Council Europe has played its part. Thirty-three states have now ratified the 13th additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, the effect of which is to outlaw capital punishment even in time of war.
I would also like to mention, however, that there are still too many states - numbering 66 - that continue to carry out executions, along with some regrettably retrograde trends when it comes to the observance of moratoria. This is why it is so important that we should be unstinting in our efforts and should aim our arguments for the abolition of the death penalty at international fora and elsewhere.
The European Union submitted resolutions to this end to the Human Rights Commission from 1999 until the Commission's dissolution in 2005, and, over that period, it proved possible to secure stable majorities in favour of them. Since that body was dissolved, we have had to seek new ways of moving the debate on the abolition of capital punishment forward, although it has to be said that, since there are no easy answers to this, our actions have to be very well thought-out if - and this is a priority - we are to avoid being obliged to retreat from positions already secured.
On this line there has, up to now, been firm agreement in the European Union, but we have, up to now, refrained from putting a resolution to this effect to the UN General Assembly in view of the continued high risk of it not being supported.
Instead, on 19 December, at the European Union's initiative, and for the first time ever, a unilateral declaration against the death penalty was put to the General Assembly, and it is important to note that it was supported by 85 states from all parts of the globe. Encouraging though this result is, it does also confirm that the chances of a resolution from the EU meeting with success in the General Assembly cannot as yet be seen as 100% certain.
What, then, is to happen next? It is clear to all partners in the European Union that we want to continue to actively promote the cause of the campaign against capital punishment, at the United Nations and elsewhere, but I would, at the same time, like to make it clear that this is still a very difficult area, and so any campaign against the death penalty will only meet with success if the European Union's actions are step by step and well thought-out.
Our watchword should continue to be that the possibility of a new EU initiative's failure should be excluded as far as possible, for a defeat for the European Union would be a victory for the advocates of the death penalty and hence a reversal in the fight against this inhumane mode of punishment, something that we do not want and must not allow to happen. I believe that we will also find supporters. It is for that reason that some of the principal players among the non-governmental organisations, Amnesty International being one of them, advise against precipitate action and are reminding us that insisting again on this subject being debated in the General Assembly of the United Nations could turn out to be counter-productive for the European Union.
Agreement was therefore reached at the General Affairs Council of 22 January that we would first devise a well thought-out approach that would progressively enable us to present our concerns more effectively to the United Nations. The ambassadors in New York and Geneva were therefore mandated to do everything possible, and without delay, to bring forward a debate at United Nations level.
It will also be necessary to draw on the experience and current estimates of the relevant NGOs as to what further steps to take in combating the death penalty at UN level.
This will then enable the Presidency of the Council to make proposals in February to the EU partners as to further action. This I regard as a first and important step, and I hope that we will find others willing to support us in this course of action.
(Applause)
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I also welcome this opportunity to exchange views on the issue of the death penalty and on the means to promote the universal abolition of this odious practice.
As you know, the abolition of the death penalty worldwide represents a key objective of the external human rights policy of the European Union, and I am personally committed to seeing the EU continue to play a lead role, as we have just heard, in this global effort. Since all of us here agree on the ultimate goal of our action in this field, namely universal abolition, I wish to provide some thoughts on this process of abolition and on the means to reach our common goal.
Firstly, let us not forget that the experience of abolition on the European continent has been a slow, often tortuous and protracted process, which has been, for most of our Member States, driven by a combination of strong political leadership and a mature level of development of human rights protection, the rule of law and democratic institutions. With some notable exceptions, including the United States of America and Japan, the global map of abolitionist countries also closely follows that of democratic pluralism. Visionary leadership and political courage are key to abolishing the death penalty. These efforts often need to be bolstered by a dynamic and open nationwide debate to ensure that the ultimate political decision to abolish the death penalty in a country is also a permanent one.
In the Philippines, and to some extent Kyrgyzstan, the recent abolition of the death penalty was precisely the result both of remarkable courage on the part of the political leadership and a profound nationwide debate, which witnessed wide participation from civil society actors - which has been mentioned - and institutions. In the United States of America, there are also some encouraging trends in some states, like New Jersey and Maryland.
On the other hand, it is not excluded that a country falls back into the practice of death penalty as we, unfortunately, have witnessed in Bahrain and need to fear in Peru. And in many other countries our appeals to abolish the death penalty have fallen on deaf ears until now.
The execution of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen has now sparked a renewed debate on the death penalty. The horrific videos of his undignified end upset even some supporters of the death penalty. But let us not forget that every year thousands are executed, most of whom are certainly somewhat better people than Saddam and many are even innocent. Their deaths should outrage us even more!
While evidently the abolition of the death penalty in any country is, to quote Robert Badinter, 'a victory of humanity over itself', one must remain realistic as to the influence of external actors, such as the European Union, in this process, because this process remains first and foremost a domestic one.
This is not to say that the European Union will sit on the fence. On the contrary, the EU has been and will remain at the very forefront of international efforts, notably at the United Nations, as was mentioned, to fight the death penalty. Last December, the EU presented a Declaration on the Death Penalty at the UN General Assembly, which received the support of a record 85 states. In line with our guidelines on the death penalty, the European Union has carried out numerous demarches on individual death penalty cases, including in countries such as the United States of America, Iran and Indonesia, and will continue to do so in the future. The EU is also the leading source of funding for abolitionist projects run by civil society, and over the past ten years, we have spent over EUR 15 million supporting such projects around the world.
The European Parliament and civil society actors have traditionally played a crucial role in both supporting the abolitionist efforts of the European Union and in stimulating the debate on the means to enhance our policy. It is of prime importance to listen carefully to those voices when discussing possible initiatives in various international forums, as the Council is currently doing.
This has certainly been illustrated most recently by the Italian proposal for a universal moratorium on the death penalty at the UN General Assembly. Without prejudging the final outcome of this process of reflection, I wish to share three observations made by abolitionist actors on the moratorium which have struck me as relevant for feeding today's discussion.
While representing a key element in the EU's strategy towards universal abolition, leading NGOs have stressed that a moratorium is not a panacea. They claim it is by essence fragile, reversible and must be followed by abolition in law. They refer to the example of Kyrgyzstan, where the regularly extended moratorium on executions has not prevented the number of prisoners on death row from increasing. I think we need moratoria that hold firm.
Secondly, some NGOs underline the fact that the moratorium is one abolitionist tool among others. I agree that, in this context, the promotion of the Second Optional Protocol providing for abolition, the support for legal counselling for death row convicts and other efforts have to be included in our toolbox. Hence, we should avoid the current discussion on the moratorium to eclipse the fact that abolition is a multi-faceted process.
Lastly, when bringing the issue back to the UN General Assembly, we need to be cautious as to the possible outcome. It is paramount to secure a positive result. We need to be alive, however, to the risk of an ambiguous or even a counterproductive outcome - and the Council Presidency has alluded to it - given international divisions on this subject. Failing in such an effort could have negative consequences which will be difficult to repair. Therefore, we need to assess the situation and possible scenarios thoroughly before moving.
In conclusion, I wish to underline the importance of maintaining a common EU approach towards the universal abolition of the death penalty. The Commission will spare no efforts to work with the Presidency and Parliament to this end.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) I believe that Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner's words clearly indicate the model of Europe we want to see: a Europe of values.
If I had briefly to paint a picture illustrating what the European dream has been over the years, I would have no hesitation in stating at this sitting, Madam President, that the idea of Europe represents a permanent call for peace, understanding, harmony and solidarity; and that, in addition to a legitimate vision of Europe, such as the Europe of financial perspectives, the Europe of the tangible, the Europe of net balance and net contributor, I believe that there is a higher vision of Europe, which is the Europe of values.
It is precisely within this context and in accordance with this vision of a Europe of values that this initiative is seeking a universal moratorium on the application of the death penalty.
It must be of a universal nature, because fundamental rights, and the right to life in particular, must not be preached for one region, one country or one continent, but they must clearly be of a universal global nature.
We must therefore celebrate the fact that, in 2005 and 2006, a whole series of countries, such as Liberia, Mexico, the Philippines and Moldova, have decided formally to abolish the death penalty. I believe that we must continue to work tirelessly to ensure that the seventy countries that still apply the death penalty join the 128 countries that no longer apply it.
Madam President, I would like to say that, if the European Union is to preserve that moral and ethical leadership that it has been exercising, it is essential that we fight to ensure that democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights, and in particular the right to life, prevail in all regions of the world, this year and over the years to come.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution on which we will vote tomorrow and this evening's debate situate the European Parliament in that international movement that is appealing to the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a resolution for a universal moratorium, which is a first step towards the general abolition of the death penalty from the statute books of every country.
As has been said, we would like the Council of Ministers to actively commit itself to achieving this objective; the Presidency is very committed, and we hope that this point remains one of the priorities of its term of office. The same commitment has been made by the Council of Europe and the European Commission.
From what she has said, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner does not actually seem to me to be very convinced of the fact that, as a first step, we need to go through a moratorium. I, on the other hand, would emphasise this point, and I would ask Mrs Ferrero-Waldner: Would not going through a moratorium bring abolition any closer? I do not think so: this could therefore be a first step, not least because the European Union, in its international relations, could bring to bear the extensive relations it enjoys in the context of the neighbourhood policy, the association agreements and the strategic partnership, and, in my opinion, Europe's political parties could also do their best within international forums to ensure that their organisations put pressure on the participating countries.
I believe that the aim is to banish the death penalty from the statute books of every State, an act that would, among other things, help to ensure that the United Nations enjoys a reputation for being an institution that safeguards universally recognised rights.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall confine my speech to a statement and a note issued this morning by the German Presidency. Word for word, the note reads: 'the German Presidency calls on the governments concerned to introduce a moratorium on the death penalty with immediate effect'. I am reading the note from the German Presidency. This is precisely our position.
I think I am right in saying that Mr Barroso also issued a statement fully supporting the Italian initiative, the aim of which is to have a proposal for a moratorium drafted within the current UN General Assembly. This proposal will undoubtedly win through: as far back as 1999 there was an absolute majority in favour of a resolution, which was not tabled.
Faced with the enthusiasm that we are seeing throughout the world right now for our initiative - that of the European Parliament, of the chairmen of our groups, the initiative that was pre-announced very specifically in Strasbourg by Mr Watson and other Members - I therefore do not understand - or, rather, I understand only too well - how it is possible to stall, at a time when France is taking the incredible step of highlighting the abolition of the death penalty with a change to its Constitution; when Rwanda is also doing so; and when, just yesterday, Kyrgyzstan did so. Statements are coming in from everywhere - from Syria, from Lebanon - in support of our position. I believe that, in the future, the European Parliament, like the Council of Europe before it, will lead this movement.
To conclude my speech, Madam President, I should like to point out that, 60 years ago, there was a Rome-Berlin axis. I was 10 years old, and I remember it well. It happens today that, with the coming-together of the German Presidency, the Italian initiative and the very recent French initiatives, a new situation is emerging: I believe that it is historically important that in a certain way Berlin and Rome are now taking a definite stand, with no hypocrisy or fear of winning, because there are too many people here who are scared of winning, not losing.
Madam President, last week, during the debate on the Benghazi case, we stated our total opposition to the death penalty under any circumstances. It is now important to reaffirm this principle, which is enshrined in Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The Union has always advocated the abolition of the death penalty, and has even gone so far as to make it a condition of accession and a key principle of its foreign policy. Moreover, guidelines were adopted in 1998, and civil society projects are regularly funded under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. This effort has been rewarded: the number of executions in the United States has gone down, and in countries like Mexico, Liberia, the Philippines and Moldova, the death penalty has been abolished.
The same is not true everywhere, however. Some US States have extended the scope of the death penalty to other crimes apart from murder; in Singapore, a person is still automatically sentenced to death for carrying 15 grams of heroin, and China still executes more people than any other country. In addition, there are countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, which have reinstated the death penalty. Peru almost did likewise in the name of combating terrorism, but fortunately this did not happen.
Against this backdrop and ahead of the developing world congress [against the death penalty], the EU must be extra vigilant. The international groundswell of opinion in favour of a universal moratorium on the death penalty should be addressed within the framework of a pro-abolition policy. Ensuring the ratification of the second protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at abolishing the death penalty should therefore be one of the Union's priorities. It is crucial that France, Latvia and Poland, which have yet to ratify the protocol, do so at the earliest opportunity.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 'No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' This is what is laid down by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and this is what makes me - indeed, I believe, makes us - proud to be part of the European Union. It is the upholding of human dignity; it is realising that no one can rule another person's life and that there should be no revenge, only justice. This should be true for all courts, including military ones.
Too many countries still have the death penalty, and they include not only large countries such as China, but also the most important military and democratic power - the United States - which has still not been able to leave its Wild West culture behind.
I hope that the Congress against the Death Penalty being held in Paris, in which we, as Parliament, will take part, will be a further step on from the moratorium on the way to abolishing the death penalty and eradicating poverty around the world. I also hope that the people who take to the streets of Paris will be a warning to all those who, even in Europe, are thinking of bringing back the death penalty. In any event, it is these street protests that will lead to the UN's approving the moratorium in full.
on behalf of the ITS Group. - (NL) Madam President, countries where capital punishment still exists do not deserve to be part of the civilised world, no matter whether these countries are Islamic, where adulterous women are stoned, the America of Bush, India, the world's largest democracy, or Communist China. I will therefore not hesitate to back the plea for a worldwide moratorium. One judicial error, the life of one innocent, is enough to write capital punishment off as barbaric. Allow me, though, to add two observations.
Respect for life should not stop a constitutional state from giving serious offenders effective and irreducible penalties of 30 years, or lifelong imprisonment for that matter. This condition must, and indeed can, underpin the public's consensus against the death penalty. This consensus will not come about unless our citizens, who are increasingly faced with the most brutal forms of crime, add their voice to the worldwide abolition of capital punishment.
Secondly, some opponents of capital punishment should display a certain degree of consistency. For example, on a recent friendly visit to China, which is a single-party state, the French Socialist Presidential candidate sang the praises of the efficiency of the Chinese justice system. This efficiency involves the families of the thousands of people who have been sentenced to death every year being presented with the bill for the bullets that killed the victims, but Ségolène Royal did not spare a thought for them. After all, they do not bring in the contracts, because the commercial interests of major enterprises in China must be protected, and that is when some European opponents of capital punishment go all quiet all of a sudden. If Europe wants to retain its credibility, it should exert pressure on countries such as China, whatever the political or commercial cost.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak on behalf of the new Italian Socialist Party. The execution of Saddam Hussein has put the spotlight back on the debate on the death penalty, a debate that is absolutely timely, although it must not be used for tactical purposes and, above all, it must not be a subject that is raised on and off. This is first and foremost a battle of civilisation and progress.
We do not just have here an essential guarantee for individuals, a request for the inviolability of individuals to be further strengthened; we are also faced with an historic and universal need, a global milestone and focal point for 21st-century civilisation.
It has been said, and I agree, that, after the abolition of slavery in previous centuries and the ban on torture, the right not to be killed following a court ruling should be another common denominator, a new and inalienable dimension of humankind that makes a community of us all. Today, this Parliament is sending out the first clear message along these lines.
Mr President, I want to support the strong calls from this Parliament today - and the campaign outside Parliament - for a worldwide moratorium on executions to be established unconditionally through a resolution of the UN General Assembly.
For many years, the EU has maintained as a main pillar of foreign affairs and human rights policy the objective of ending the use of the death penalty globally. We have had some success, particularly as part of our neighbourhood strategy. Today's initiative is an ambitious attempt to raise the profile of the debate on the death penalty to a UN level and to have an impact on the 66 countries that have already been referred to that still use the death penalty. It is important to note that working towards achieving a moratorium on the death penalty should always be linked to achieving an eventual abolition through legislation, as previous speakers have pointed out.
The pragmatic first step is a call for a moratorium, but we must always look at ways to promote abolition where possible. Looking at what we can do here in the EU from a policy perspective, I would urge the Council to review and update the guidelines on the death penalty, which date back to 1998, so that new elements and strategies that have developed since then can be taken into consideration. The Third World Congress on the Death Penalty, which is to be held soon in Paris, may be a good opportunity to do just that.
To date, the EU's proactive policy on the death penalty has produced some positive results. For example, recently, the success of strong EU representations in Peru to recent proposals to extend the death penalty to that country, in violation of the Peruvian Constitution and the American Convention on Human Rights, needs to be acknowledged and welcomed. The EU stance did have an impact on the Peruvian Congress in its rejection of draft legislation. So the EU has shown that it can be a key influence on national policy towards the death penalty, and we should not be afraid to use that influence.
(ES) Madam President, yesterday, Robert Wilson, of 24 years of age, was sentenced to death by a jury in New York. This is the first death sentence to be handed down in that State for 50 years.
This is another tragic example of the current threat to the universal values that we are all defending here today, despite the very significant progress that has been made in countries such as Liberia, Mexico, the Philippines and Moldova.
We must, however, continue to fight to ensure that others, such as China, with around two thousand official executions per year - eight thousand, according to unofficial data - join the global moratorium and suspend their executions.
We must support Iranian civil society, which is rising up against the death penalty. Iran has one of the highest numbers of executions: 177 in 2006. Furthermore, it has broken the moratorium on stonings and it currently has six women sentenced to death by stoning.
Above all, we appeal to the United States, a country whose decisions have an immense impact on global politics, to support the Italian initiative to establish a universal moratorium on the death penalty which will be approved - with this Parliament's support, I hope - in the United Nations General Assembly.
As other speakers have said here today, the moratorium is a first essential step towards abolition. This is probably one of the most important challenges facing the human race at the beginning of this century.
Madam President, worldwide, 20 000 people are on death row waiting to be killed by their own governments. Sadly, over 3000 of these are in the United States. I do not single the US out because it is the worst - that is China, with 80% of executions - but because we have hope of the Americans. The great prize would be for a change of mind in the United States and the signs are there. The number of executions in the states of the US has dropped dramatically since 1999: there were 277 in that year, and 128 in 2005. Twelve states have now abolished the death penalty, not including Texas, which clocks up an unimpressive one-third of the 1100 executions in the US in the last 30 years.
I think the Commission and the Presidency need to be more proactive and less hesitant in seeking a moratorium and abolition worldwide through a UN General Assembly resolution. As in some other areas of human rights policy, like extraordinary rendition and war-on-terror abuses, the EU is not always as effective in putting its principles into practice as Parliament would wish.
(EL) Madam President, as we speak, all the Member States of the Union have ratified the sixth protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty. We also nourish the hope that it will be abolished both by law and in practice in all the countries of the world - be it in times of peace or in times of war - with the result that there will be an improvement in respect for human rights and human dignity will be reinforced, as the Council and the Commission emphasised today.
Allow me, however, to ask you if you were concerned about the human rights and dignity of the dictator Saddam Hussein and his fellow detainees, who became food for the entire world's voyeurs. Is this the role of the European Union as a global stability factor?
What can you say about the statements by the British foreign secretary, Mrs Becket, who emphasised that Hussein simply got what he deserved and that justice was done?
What are European citizens supposed to believe when they read the condemnatory statements by the Council, on the one hand, and hear the derisory comments by the ministers in it, on the other? We need to get our act together, because we are ultimately just fooling ourselves.
Madam President, I must say that the arrogance of this EU knows no bounds. Not satisfied with dictating to Member States that they must not avail of the ultimate deterrent - the death penalty - it now wishes to dictate to the rest of the world.
Awful as the fate of the Bulgarian nurses in Libya is, and while this House should be vigorous in protesting against their situation, it does not justify us demanding a global ban on the death penalty. Wrongful imprisonment is intolerable, but it does not lead rational people to oppose all imprisonment. No, I say that if there is a fair, transparent, human rights compliant judicial system, with a reliable appeal process, then a sovereign nation state is perfectly entitled to deploy the death penalty for capital crimes, if that is the democratically expressed wish of its people. They, not we, have the right to choose what is right for them.
(IT) Madam President, I am delighted to take the floor because, among other things, I come from Tuscany where, for the first time in history, on 30 November 1786, capital punishment was abolished. I am also moved to point out that, in 1987, I, together with Amnesty International and the Italian Movement for Life, succeeded in having the death penalty of Paula Cooper, a 16-year-old black girl, commuted in the United States. She later came to thank me.
I am also pleased to point out that, as an Italian Member, I proposed and achieved the legal abolition of the death penalty in the military code of war, which is the reason for my in-depth thoughts on the matter. I take an optimistic view of human history which, in spite of everything, is a struggle for goodness, a struggle that is spurred on by an ever more obvious and decisive value: the dignity of each and every human being. So great is this dignity that it cannot be graded, and thus it determines the equal status of everybody, no matter what kind of life they lead. Dignity is also indestructible: not even the hands of a criminal can wipe away the traces of dignity from the face of the very man who has committed the crime.
No one can take away a person's life and dignity, not even individual States. That is the real reason why the death penalty must be abolished. All the other practical reasons, of which I am only too aware, may meet with objections, but not this one. A Europe that seeks to base its identity not only on competition and the market, but also on dignity and human rights, cannot keep quiet.
Right now, I do not want to talk about inconsistencies. The time will come when human dignity and the associated right to life extend their persuasive powers to other areas of human life where they are now sadly being overshadowed, even within our Union: the most symbolic areas of poverty and human alienation, which are to be born and to die.
(ES) Madam President, rejecting the death penalty is not a question of moral superiority, nor of lecturing anybody, nor of collective pomposity on the part of Europe. It is consistent with a basic belief in human dignity, many years' experience of the utter pointlessness of capital punishment and fear of the serious and perfectly well-documented risk of its being applied unjustly, even if in only one specific case (and there have been many of them, regrettably).
Europe must apply itself to what is possible, without forgetting the ultimate objective. What is possible is to demand a moratorium courageously, throughout the world, beginning with our closest partners, without forgetting - I would insist - the ultimate objective, which would be the global abolition of the death penalty.
We must protest against the death penalty, but that must include the death penalty on Saddam Hussein as well as the death penalty on the person sentenced in the United States, following a trial with practically no defence, for a crime he committed when he was under-age.
Those death sentences, Commissioner, must be condemned just as vigorously as the death sentence on Saddam Hussein; we must not have double standards, because if what we are advocating is to fight the death penalty, those more or less anonymous prisoners who have had practically no right to defence deserve our support even more than a criminal such as Saddam Hussein.
(PL) Madam President, the political, religious and legal debate on whether or not to apply the death penalty has been under way for decades and will continue into the future. The famous writer Albert Camus spoke out against it in his time, and Robert Badinter, a former French Justice Minister, led a legal battle at European level for many years. As a rule, strong ethical arguments are adduced in heated debates of this nature, and references are made to the inalienable right to life. Horrifying statistics about the number of sentences carried out in countries such as China or India are also quoted. The largest democracy in the world, the United States, is placed in the dock. Catholics opposed to the death penalty and those in favour of it contrive to base entirely contradictory arguments on the same sources, namely the Gospels, the Catechism and Papal encyclicals. It is very difficult to justify to the families and loved ones of people, often children, who have been cruelly murdered that the death penalty should not be applied to those responsible for the crimes. At such times, people's emotions incline them to desire a very different outcome.
I hail from a country that suffered under the iron rule of Hitler's totalitarian Nazi regime and later under Soviet Communism. I would like to point out that use of the death penalty is a key feature of each and every dictatorship. When I look back at events in my country, Poland, during the period to which I previously referred, I see how whole legions of Poland's finest sons and daughters were murdered, following sentences handed down by Communist kangaroo courts. Having considered both sides of the argument concerning the death penalty, I am bound to say that its abolition is essential in order to curb the madness of fanatics prepared to use the legal system to eliminate their opponents. The most the fellow citizens of these murdered heroes can do years later, once freedom has been restored, is to put up monuments in their honour.
This is what I have learnt from the history of my parents' and grandparents' generations and also of my own. Only one of the 1 500 death sentences carried out in Poland during the Stalinist period involved a common criminal. The price of restricting the actions of dictators of various political hues may well be that, instead of being guillotined, offenders who deserve this ultimate punishment will have to spend the rest of their lives in prison, without the opportunity of parole. If that is the case, I believe it is a price worth paying, however painful it may be to do so.
(LT) - 'The death penalty is the most offensive method of killing, because it is done with the approval of the community.' These words of George Bernard Shaw, pronounced almost a century ago, are being endorsed by an ever-increasing number of people and a majority of countries. Unfortunately, the natural human right to life is still ignored by 68 countries. The death penalty is most often implemented not only in Asia, but also in the United States. The execution of Saddam Hussein, I would say, has become a display of impotence. We are now presented with an exceptional opportunity to work hand in hand with the Italian Government to seek abolition of the death penalty in every country of the world. Opposition to the death penalty is one of the values that unites EU countries; therefore, the Union's voice carries weight. The United Nations General Assembly will, I hope, support the proposed moratorium on the implementation of the death penalty, and its abolition should be the ultimate goal. At the same time, it is essential to condemn the statements of some official representatives of the new EU countries about the possibility of legitimation of the death penalty. World public opinion needs to be channelled in the European direction.
(PL) Madam President, Article 1 of Additional Protocol No VI to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms reads: 'The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such a penalty or executed'. This protocol was laid down back in 1983, and underpins the thinking and actions of the Member States of the Union. It is also the stance adopted by most Members of the Council of Europe. Essentially, these are European standards for the protection of human rights. The question as to whether the abolition of the death penalty is only relevant to Europe is a rhetorical one. Clearly, the answer is no. Every individual has but one life and that life deserves to be protected. We must therefore support a UN moratorium on the death penalty. We are aware that the death penalty is rooted in a culture of revenge and retribution from which mankind needs to break free. It is very easy to delete the death penalty from criminal codes. All that is required is the legislators' will to do so. It will be much more difficult for us to detach ourselves from it at an emotional level, to recognise it as an unethical penalty and banish it forever from human consciousness. However, we must be aware that if we fail to do so, we shall have to go on asking ourselves whether, in the 21st century, man can continue to kill his fellow man in the name of the law.
(PL) Madam President, the European Union has consistently advocated a ban on the application of the death penalty since 1998. In October 2003, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the European institutions and Member States of the Union to put pressure on the UN General Assembly to declare a moratorium on the implementation of the death penalty. The European institutions and Member States of the Union must ensure that the issue of the death penalty is dealt with again at the current UN General Assembly. Acting on behalf of the European Union, the Member States must aim at tabling a draft resolution on a general moratorium on the implementation of the death penalty, with a view to its abolition. They should garner maximum support for this resolution amongst the Member States of the UN. The European institutions and Member States of the Union should do all in their power to secure, as soon as possible, a favourable outcome in a vote at the current UN General Assembly.
(EL) Madam President, the fact that broad agreement between the political party has prevailed in today's debate confirms that the European Parliament can act as the guarantor of European democratic civilisation and for the protection of human rights, human dignity and the right to life.
It has been proven that the death penalty not only does not prevent crime, but also feeds hatred and violence. The civilised world cannot respond to the barbarity of a criminal act with the barbarity of death.
We welcome the initiative by Mr Prodi's Italian Government and the backing being given to it by the president of the Socialist International, Georgos Papandreou. All the Member States of the European Union should certainly ratify the voluntary UN protocol, the 13th protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. I would say, however, that the Member States should incorporate a provision abolishing the death penalty in their internal constitutional order.
To close, I should like to say that we should not overlook the fact that today in European society there is a large percentage of citizens who are still in favour of the death penalty and, as such, we must also work in this direction, together with the European Commission, with programmes working through democratic consultation to convince European society.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, what has become apparent from this debate is how great a consensus exists as regards what is one of the most fundamental objectives of the European Union's policy on human rights. Frequent reference was made in it to the Italian initiative, about which there must be no misunderstanding. When talking about this initiative, we are not talking about the 'whether' of it, or about what it is intended to achieve, but rather about the 'how', 'where', and, of course, the 'when' of it, in other words about the procedure rather than the substance.
You, Commissioner, made that very clear earlier on. At the General Assembly on 19 December last year, a unilateral declaration was read out, and 85 states endorsed it; encouraging though that is, we must also, on the other hand, consider and bear in mind the question of whether our objective is capable of being achieved at all in view of the fact that, to date, this declaration has gained the support of only 21 out of 47 members of the new Human Rights Council in Geneva. To put it bluntly, we do not yet have a majority for it.
The situation in the United Nations' third committee is similar. As I said in my statement earlier, there are now various fronts on which we have to take the initiative. The General Affairs and Foreign Relations Council, too, has come up with a strategy for achieving the goal to which all of you, in your interventions, have referred, and, although we do not at present know when we will be able to implement it, I can assure you that we will support you in your efforts; that is something on which we, the Commission and the Presidency are agreed, for we too are endeavouring to do away with capital punishment for ever.
Madam President, I endorse what the President-in-Office Council has just said. I think there is widespread consensus in this House and between all the EU institutions on the substance of today's debate and where we want to go, but sometimes we have to see what the next tactical step is.
I want to clarify that the Commission is certainly favourable to the introduction of a moratorium as an important intermediate step towards the complete abolition of the death penalty. We of course support the Italian initiative and Parliament's motion for a resolution, but we have to see - and this is at stake - the tactical nature. How can we ensure that the planned UN General Assembly initiative will be successful? We need to ensure very good preparation. We have to reach out to all the UN members, and we need pertinent timing for the launch of the initiative of such a worldwide moratorium.
We are also quite active not only at UN level, but also at bilateral level; we try to do that be it in China or Peru. I have, for instance, written to the Peruvian President to express our deep concerns, and hopefully there is still a chance to block it.
I would also like to thank Parliament, because it also has possibilities. It has used them in the past, and maybe it can use them even more by talking to the different delegations. Very often, as I said before, it is a domestic issue, and the more Parliament can talk to parliaments, the better we can influence this.
I have received six motions for a resolution in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 11.30 p.m.


2. Multilateral Agreement on the Establishment of a European Common Aviation Area (vote)
- Lichtenberger report
(After the vote, the commotion grew louder)


Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes


Deadline for tabling amendments: see Minutes


4. Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (


10. Strengthening security and fundamental freedoms on the Internet (
- Before the vote
rapporteur. - Mr President, I am grateful to everyone for their support. There is just one slight point of confusion for me. The oral amendment is on the voting list but nobody stood up to support it. Does that mean that it fell and did not come to the vote at all? Is that correct?
I can confirm that, if an oral amendment is to be adopted, it must be expressed orally, which has not been the case, in spite of my request. You have therefore understood perfectly.


17. European Statistical Advisory Council (vote)
- Report: van den Burg


Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Cashman, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (recast) C6-0184/2008 -.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I look forward to this debate, and particularly to hearing from those who are not so keen on enhancing transparency and public access to documents.
I wish to begin by thanking the seven ministers from the EU who have declared their support for my report. In particular, they are, and I quote: 'therefore, glad to see that Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted a report on 17 February 2009 that shares our vision of a more transparent Union'.
I find it staggering that, when we are trying to reconnect to our citizens, people do not support transparency and openness. I find it equally staggering that, when we are trying to connect the institutions back to the public, there is a lack of willingness to enhance public scrutiny and accountability.
Some Members have raised doubts about whether all the amendments that my report proposes are within the scope of the legal basis of the regulation - Article 255 of the Treaty. I should like to set their minds at rest: the object of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is: 'to give the public a right of access to documents of the institution which is as wide as possible. That right of public access to the documents of the institution is related to the democratic nature of those institutions.' Do not simply take my word for it - I am quoting verbatim from the Turco judgment of the Court of Justice. It is in the spirit of that judgment that we must interpret Article 255 of the Treaty.
Take our Amendment 44 on classified documents. It is simply disingenuous to say, as the Commission has, that the classification of documents as confidential has no link with public access to such documents. Under the present version of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, documents may only be classified in order to safeguard the essential interests protected under Article 4(1). So the link is already there. What we have done is to draw the logical consequences from that link and incorporate rules on the classification of documents into the regulation itself. These rules, which are carefully modelled on the rules the Council and the Commission already apply, define limits on the public's right to access to documents, just as Article 255 requires, and there is nothing in the Treaty to prevent the institutions adopting these in the regulation.
Take our Amendment 24, which refers to agencies and bodies created by the institution. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as amended, will lay down the principles, conditions and limits of public access to the documents of those agencies, but it will not, in itself, create obligations for agencies.
If you read our Amendment 29, for example, you will see that the regulation applies only to documents held by the institutions, although it does set the standards that agencies will be expected to follow in adopting their own rules on public access to their documents, in accordance, I might add, with the joint declaration adopted by the Council, the Commission and Parliament on 30 May 2001.
Let me also point out for those who cannot witness it, the sadness that the Council is not here to attach the due importance to this extremely important report.
I know some of you were also concerned that we went too far in seeking to ensure that Member States did not undermine the level of transparency the regulation aims at. I believe I have come a long way to meet concerns, as you will see from compromise amendments that remind the Member States of their duties under Article 10 of the Treaty not to stand in the way of the achievement of the Community's objectives, including transparency and democracy.
The amendments by Mr Nassauer may bring some reassurances to his group and other MEPs who are concerned that some private information may get into the public domain. That will not happen and cannot happen under my report. There is still the space to think that personal and private data will remain protected, so I will listen with great interest as to why those who oppose this regulation do so.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you for a very substantive report on the Commission's proposal for a recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. This is a very important and cherished subject and I appreciate the enormous work that has been done by Mr Cashman, as rapporteur, and also many other active, interested and skilled people in this House.
This is a subject that touches upon fundamental and sometimes conflicting rights of citizens, associations and undertakings. We need to look very carefully at the necessary changes to be made to this Regulation and we need to remain focused on openness. All three institutions have agreed that, overall, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has worked remarkably well for almost eight years now. Parliament, Council and Commission are much more open now than ever before. You could say that the change of rules led to a change of practice and to a change of minds and attitudes.
At the same time, Parliament, Council and Commission also agree that legitimate interests have received adequate protection. We should not forget that the EU institutions have granted access to a higher number of documents, while a decrease in the number and rate of refusals has been registered. So I hope you agree that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has proven its value. For this reason, a complete overhaul is not necessary.
Having said this, even a good tool can always be improved. The legal base we have as our starting point is Article 255 of the Treaty, as has already been mentioned by the rapporteur. Following that, the Regulation shall define principles and the limits governing the citizen's right of access to documents. As regards the report at hand, I note that some amendments go beyond the scope of Article 255 of the Treaty and therefore these amendments cannot be accepted. But - and this is an important 'but' - they point to important issues that may well be addressed in another context. The Commission will certainly look at that with a constructive, pragmatic and open mind.
It is good practice to assess from time to time whether legislation works well and achieves its objectives, and it is in this spirit that the Commission drafted its proposal for a recast of the Regulation. The use of the recast technique meets the objective of better lawmaking. Since this Regulation touches upon a fundamental right of citizens, it is of the utmost importance to adopt a single, clear and readable legal text.
The recast technique does not tie the hands of the legislator more than the traditional way of amending legislation. Irrespective of the choice of legislative technique, the Community legislator may not go beyond the aim of the proposal.
We are committed to continuing to enhance transparency and openness, and I firmly believe that this is a good way to do it. In this context, however, I have to mention that a number of the amendments concern provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 which the Commission did not propose to amend. We are not in a position to accept them because they go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal.
Having said this, the Commission is, of course, willing to take on board good ideas, although we are at the moment still in the early stages of the procedure. I would like to confirm that the Commission is willing to have discussions with the two co-legislators and that we want to try to find common ground in order to reach a balanced and workable compromise text. However, the Commission prefers to come forward with an amended proposal when the two co-legislators have stated their position. We cannot and will not prejudge or anticipate discussions or negotiations.
We should also bear in mind the changes that the Lisbon Treaty - if and when it enters into force - will bring about on this important issue. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 will then apply to all institutions, bodies, agencies and offices of the European Union, albeit to a limited extent for the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank. For citizens, the Lisbon Treaty will mean real progress when all EU bodies will apply a common set of rules on access to documents. Such a single set of rules ensures consistency but, at the same time, it must be tailored to fit the great number of bodies with very different mandates and competences.
I would also like to repeat what I have said on previous occasions in this House and elsewhere. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is the cornerstone of a policy on transparency, but we also need to think about what we can do proactively outside the formal legislation. That is why I announced at the joint committee meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of 20 January that I am taking the initiative to prepare an openness action plan. Improved registers, greater user-friendliness and accessibility, active dissemination, and quicker publishing of documents are some examples of what I want to address in this action plan and, of course, continue to discuss with the other EU institutions. This is a pragmatic and efficient way to mainstream transparency into all our policies. We need to lead by example.
In this spirit, we should also look at ways to make our institutions and the way they operate more understandable to citizens. We need an active policy of informing citizens and making them aware of how Europe-wide policies affect their everyday life. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is, of course, an important tool but, beyond the legal text, it is how we put this into practice that really counts.
To sum up the Commission's position on Mr Cashman's report at this stage of the procedure, I would like to say the following. There are some amendments the Commission cannot accept because they go beyond the legal base of Article 255 of the Treaty. There are other amendments we cannot accept because they go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposed changes, but in some cases, such amendments nevertheless point to important issues that may well be addressed in another context. Also, the Commission is always willing to take on board good ideas in whatever context it may be. Once we have Parliament's and the Council's positions, you will have the position from the third corner in the institutional triangle.
I look forward to an interesting and thought-provoking discussion to come. The subject deserves that, and our citizens are entitled to expect clear and well-functioning legislation on public access to our documents.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have one minute for the Committee on Legal Affairs and one for the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. Therefore, I would like to combine them, since the two things have much in common in this case.
Mr President, we in the Committee on Legal Affairs have discussed the recast issue at length. I will say straight away that we are not at all pleased: indeed, we think that the use of the recast procedure for this kind of act was not a particularly bright decision, not least because, as the Commissioner said, the real task here is to understand how a regulation that has worked fairly well, but could be perfected, can, in fact, be improved. So, the outcome, whether through the use of this procedure or through the practical proposals that have been made, is surely a step backwards compared with the current situation. Something must therefore be done about it, and it is more difficult to do this with the recast procedure than with a full legislative mandate.
The second thing I would like to say is that there is no point in beating about the bush: I am pleased that the Commissioner is announcing welcome initiatives on transparency and openness, but the fact remains that the Commission's proposal excludes documents that are currently open and transparent from the scope of this legislation. That is the truth of the matter, and it is also true that a number of Member States, including her own, have said as much quite clearly and have said that it is unacceptable.
Today, the problem is that if we want to improve a piece of legislation, we cannot all simply defend the status quo because if we do, we run the risk of being less transparent, less comprehensible and even, may I say, less democratic.
Mr President, transparency is the basis of democracy. Unfortunately, the European Union can hardly brag about its transparency. Directives need to be changed, but so do attitudes. What can you say about the statement by the Council that outsiders should not be given documents relating to legal advice in connection with legislative procedure? Outsiders, citizens if you like, should not be given them then. I cannot understand how European Union citizens can be outsiders.
Attitudes, therefore, have to change. Legislation has to change to make the legislative documents of the Council, Parliament and Commission transparent, and the emphasis here is on legislative documents. If I make a comparison with my own country, for example, and the Finnish Parliament, we could not imagine the statements of its Constitutional Law Committee being secret. That would mean the people would not be told the reasons why this or that law is being enacted; and the Council says we should not say anything because the public are outsiders.
In legislation, in the formulation of directives, in everything, we need to work on the assumption that we should increase transparency, and there is also room for improvement in voting procedures. We should have electronic voting...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr President, Commissioner, we should not waste the opportunity presented by this excellent report to reach agreement at first reading - I mean, during this Parliamentary term - so as to create legislation ensuring greater transparency in access to documents. Excuses are not acceptable, and I hope we have the time and the common sense to reach such agreement on this excellent report.
In the report, we in the Committee on Petitions express our concern at the fact that, where infringement proceedings are brought against a Member State as a result of a petition by citizens, the Member State has the right to deny access to the public documents used in those infringement proceedings, thereby shutting the door on citizens' participation.
We are also very concerned at the lack of interoperability and the technical block that exists in the European Parliament regarding the use of interoperable documents, that is to say, open-standard documents, which are not compatible with the software and IT platform that Parliament is currently using, which is specific to a single company.
The fact is that the European institutions do not guarantee citizens genuine access to the content of documents without imposing discrimination of a technical nature. That is unacceptable, because people cannot access the documents that we are creating. As I speak at this moment, no one can access my words without a technical platform provided by a particular firm that has a monopoly on this information. That really is something that goes against transparency and access to information.
Mr President, we fully share Mr Cashman's aims and commitment to transparency, but we must not forget that there is a regulation that is being recast here. Together, we have pushed the current transparency legislation through. The four Nordic Member States have written to the committee about this regulation, stating that it increases citizens' trust in the EU and that it provides the greatest possible degree of transparency. Mr Cashman and I have always worked very well together, but this time we did not have enough time to sort out all of the issues that were unclear. In other words, it is quite early on in the process, but I welcome many of the proposals and look forward to our continued cooperation.
When the Transparency Regulation was adopted, the 'yes' votes from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats were decisive in winning the vote. This time, too, the PPE-DE votes will probably be significant for the final outcome, which will presumably come during a new Parliament. The PPE-DE Group will use its votes to strengthen legal certainty, predictability and clarity when the rules are formulated as the process continues. We want increased transparency and citizens must be able to follow the democratic debate. We believe that the matter requires more preparation, so that there are common impact assessments with regard to the institutions' way of working, for example.
A number of amendments, around 40 to 50 of them, which relate to the Commission's right of initiative, have caused some discussion. The only thing I would like to add is that it should not result in a greater lack of clarity, as that would run counter to the aim of the recast. What is on the table today will probably be modified after the elections. The PPE-DE Group wishes, then, to achieve a degree of transparency that can receive the support of all EU citizens and Member States. This requires those involved to know what the rules are - that being the aim of the proposal. Sanctions cannot be used, either, if there are no clear instructions. As regards sanctions, there is already existing legislation to be taken into account. We therefore see the proposal as an as yet unfinished product, but we fully agree with Mr Cashman that it should lead to increased transparency and that is what we have indicated in our amendments. Transparency is an important part of democracy.
I have five minutes for the PPE-DE Group, so could I just say my last few words?
(SV) We say 'yes' to transparency, but we want to avoid the naivety that can expose people to danger or abuse.
Will the PPE-DE Group lose the three minutes, or what?
I do not know what to say. The agenda specified two minutes, but I am sure that you will have a further opportunity to speak.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I will speak in English in honour of our rapporteur. With this very interesting report, Parliament is doing three things. First of all, it is taking realities into consideration. We are speaking now about privacy in the era of the Internet and not privacy as an abstract notion. We are taking into account the use of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 which has, for some time, been applied to problems but also with good use.
We are taking into account the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the proposals by the Ombudsman and other agencies, and the case-law of the Court. We are also taking into account the Commission's real proposal with its possibilities and its drawbacks - and I think there are some drawbacks.
The second point - and this is very interesting - is that this report is based on principles and not technicalities; a balance between access to documents and the safeguarding of private life; a generalised access to documents but with very precise rules; a very important distinction between public and private interests and this notion of European public interest which is very important to those of us who love Europe; a distinction between legislative and non-legislative procedures which is also interesting; parity between EU transparency and Member State transparency.
Lastly, the most important thing is that this report tries to establish a complete system of transparency - not transparency for every institution separately, but transparency on an interinstitutional basis where all the institutions are taken into account and where the principles of good administration and the Charter of Fundamental Rights are also taken into account. There is also a very common set of classified information, albeit with spy movie names such as EU Confidential, EU Top Secret, but it is important to have a common set of rules in this matter also.
What we are trying to achieve here is transparency as a general rule, with exceptions where those exceptions are justified by the protection of other rights, but to have a common set of rules whereby transparency is the most important one but other exceptions are also taken into account.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, excuse me if I am not able to stay to hear the Commissioner's answer. I believe there is something significant missing from this debate and that something is the Council which has, in truth, been absent from the entire debate, including at committee stage. This, moreover, is the material point: there exists, particularly within the Council, a concept of Europe as the sum of the governments of national states. Consequently when these governments meet together as legislators, these affairs are, shall we say, confidential; citizens must then await the final outcome.
This simply cannot be tolerated when we know that the European Union has legislative powers and citizens have a right to information throughout the entire legislative process. As confirmed and demonstrated by the judgment in the Maurizio Turco case, citizens have a right to information on the positions of national delegations within the Council as well as on legal opinions. That is why we pledge our full support for Mr Cashman's report, which embodies a different idea of Europe; that of European democracy.
I believe that Mr Cashman should also be supported in his attempt to put forward proposals that go above and beyond those made by the Commission. The European Commission would be mistaken if it were to ask us to limit our activities as a legislative body to the proposals put forward by the Commission. I believe that our right to extend the mandate is even enshrined in the treaties. I hope that Mr Cashman will accept our proposed amendments, particularly on greater financial transparency, and I believe that as the European Parliament, we should set a good example.
I read today in the press that our decision to publish parliamentary attendance - this has nothing to do with this report - a decision taken in this House, has, however, apparently run up against technical problems that will prevent it from being implemented before the European elections. There is no technical problem, this job can be done quickly and easily, and I hope that as Parliament we will set a good example on this as well as on the rapporteur's necessary and positive changes to the Commission's proposal for improved access to documents. We hope to hear something from the empty Council benches sooner or later, if only a public explanation of their reasons for opposing our proposals. They must have the courage to publicly defend the idea of a Europe that must make its decisions on legislation in secret, something I regard as wholly unacceptable.
Mr President, transparency and public access in respect of everything to do with legislation and political decisions is one of the most important factors behind being a democratic society. Transparency and public access create a sense of participation and confidence in the political system. The opposite - secrecy and the withholding of documents - creates mistrust and a sense of not being involved, and can sometimes aid in the development of corruption and the abuse of power.
An increasing amount of national legislation, with the principle of public access we have in Sweden, for example, is now being made at EU level. The decisions have been transferred to EU level, but transparency and public access have not followed. Our citizens see this, of course, and that is one reason why we have a low turnout for elections to the European Parliament. Citizens find it difficult to penetrate and understand the decision-making process within the EU system and feel, quite rightly, that decisions are taken and legislation is created at EU level without them having any real opportunity to study all of the documents. They therefore have no opportunity to discuss, debate or influence the decision makers.
We all want to increase the turn-out for the Parliamentary elections, but, if we are to succeed in this, campaigns and exhortations to go and vote are simply not enough. In order for this to be meaningful, we need to do everything we can to provide citizens with information and awareness. We must establish a dialogue with the citizens instead of the one-sided provision of information from above. Public access must be the main principle, secrecy must be an exception. There must be a specific method for permitting secrecy in specific cases and there must be strong grounds for doing so where that is the case.
The Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left and I have submitted amendments to, among other things, broaden the definition of documents, make more documents accessible to the public and prevent any individual Member State from being able to submit a veto. Commissioner Wallström said that a good tool can always be improved. Unfortunately, this report will not bring improvements, but will, in fact, make things worse. However, it can be improved by supporting the amendments tabled by myself and the GUE/NGL Group. Therefore, for the sake of democracy, vote in favour of the GUE/NGL amendments and increase the citizens' ability to get involved.
Thank you, Mr President, Mr Cashman has written a good report, for which I would like to express my support. The Commission's revision of the 2008 Transparency Initiative will make public access to EU documents more difficult. If this report is adopted, it will go a long way towards rectifying that. However, we still lack access to the advisory working parties within the Commission. According to a statement from the organisation Alter-EU made just before Christmas, we have satisfactory listed information on only two thirds of the members of the working parties involved in producing legislative proposals within the EU. This is completely unacceptable. As a citizen, I need to know whether it is tobacco industry lobbyists or health organisations that are advising the Commission when an initiative to improve public health is to be produced. I also need to know whether it is the chemicals industry or the environmental organisations sitting round the table when an aquatic environment plan is drawn up.
(DE) Mr President, one reason why we fell into the trap of globalisation is specifically that we failed to avoid the Europe trap. The Europe trap essentially lies in our failure, then as now, to act according to the tried and tested principles of transparency of the Scandinavian and other states.
I have now been a Member of this Chamber for 10 years and it was not by chance that, when I arrived here - not with this intention, but it came to me very quickly - I found myself saying, 'oh my word, transparency is the crucial issue', and for that reason, I set up the European Transparency Initiative back in 2000. The initiative was adopted by the Commission word for word, it is just that there is still little by way of substance.
Commissioner, you can read up on what I said to your fellow Swede Anna Lindh - in a long speech at the Nice Summit - in this area. You, as a Swede, understand what this is about. You do know what should really be done.
In the European Union, however, the reality when it comes to transparency issues is that the task we face is like trying to clear an avalanche with a shovel. We are not getting through, and new snow keeps on coming. There is only one way to rescue this European Union, and that is to have real transparency on the Swedish model plus that of the US Freedom of Information Act right now, immediately. Without it, you will experience yet more avalanches, and this time they will hit populated areas.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we decide laws at European level for several hundred million people, and that is why transparency is required. We all agree on the objective - transparency is important, and I also think that we, as the European Parliament, have no need to hide. We are under the media spotlight, we are watched by journalists, our work is already transparent.
We all agree on the objective, but we must be allowed to argue about the methods of achieving it, and just because someone disputes and wants to get to the bottom of those methods that does not necessarily mean that he or she wants everything to be done behind closed doors. Rather, such people are often just people who ask questions. Here in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, we have a lot of critical questions, such as about the competition procedure in the Council, such as on the issue of whether we need to make all the legal service's documents public, such as the question of whether the private affairs of an MEP should now be the subject of public discussion. We fight for data protection for our citizens, yet MEPs are to be expected to make everything public. Asking questions like this is allowed.
The key point, the reason why there is also a lot of scepticism in our group, is the question of the legislative process. When we vote, everyone can look up how individual MEPs have voted. All MEPs must also bear responsibility for the way they vote. This is already in evidence as things stand. In a legislative process, though, in the trialogue, when we discuss things amongst ourselves, there also has to be a place for carrying out negotiations.
We know that, if everything were public, the form of negotiations that we have today would no longer exist because you would be putting your head above the parapet as soon as you tried to seek out and to bring about political compromises. That is why there is still a large amount of scepticism in this group about this proposal. We will clarify the final position of our group tonight.
I would like to make one thing clear on behalf of my group, however, which is that we do want transparency, but the methods of achieving it must continue to be up for discussion. We do all agree on the objective. Looking at the individual European institutions, it is not Parliament that is the problem. It is, rather, the Council, which is not represented here today, that represents the problem as, alas, we have no idea what goes on in the Council's working groups.
(SV) Mr President, Commissioner Wallström, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Cashman and others who have contributed to the fact that we will soon be taking a new and long-awaited step towards making our work more accessible to our citizens. Vice-President and Commissioner Wallström has also fought hard and long.
When Sweden joined the EU, many people were worried that documents would leak out via that country, which has a very strong public access principle, but this has not happened at all. Mr Cashman can tell us about this, because if someone is in favour of transparency and accessibility, that person will also know where the limits are for working material, secrecy and disclosure.
In the Committee on Civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abstained from voting. I hope that you are now in favour of increasing public access within the EU, so that the Swedish Presidency, together with the rest of us, will be able to take this important and key democratic issue further for all EU citizens. However, I can understand the PPE-DE Group's hesitancy - after all, it was your group that ensured that we were forced to have a secret vote when Turkey was to begin accession negotiations. Is that what you want? I hope that Parliament will now stand united and that we can proudly say to our voters in the EU elections in June that the EU will become increasingly open - that we have no hidden agendas and that we want to be scrutinised on and judged by what we do - and with a transparency of which we can be proud. We do a lot of good things and it would be good if the citizens were better able to follow the work that we do.
(PL) Mr President, it is clear to everyone that the decision-making process of the Community's institutions and bodies must take place openly and publicly. That is the basis of democracy. Based on this principle, citizens and elected authorities should have the broadest possible access to the documents held by the European institutions, which includes this Parliament. This will enable citizens to truly participate in the political process and to ask the public authorities for clarification.
Despite the efforts made by the European institutions to increase openness and transparency, the situation is, unfortunately, far from satisfactory. The Committee on Petitions has stated that citizens are aware of the deficiencies and failures in the implementation of this right. It is extremely important that in rights infringement procedures, which are often brought as a result of citizens' petitions, citizens are assured of full access to all documents at each stage in their pursuit of their rights. This should also apply to the documents with which the European institutions are provided by the Member States. This has been a major problem, even for the Commission in the German Jugendamt case, where access to information was highly restricted, even though it was public information.
I would like to underline once again, that easy access by petitioners to the information they need should be the foundation for the success of the European transparency initiative. The principles of democracy demand it.
(DE) Mr President, the problem of the estrangement of the public from politics in the EU is something that is well known, which is why we attempt to demonstrate our citizen-friendliness over and over again. This includes regularly recurring initiatives to simplify access to the documents of Parliament, the Council and the Commission.
The Internet is, of course, a cheap and simple tool to achieve this. The EU's homepage has been revised and has, at least, been made more logical and easier to navigate around than it was in the past. In its Internet presence, the EU also highlights the importance of multilingualism as a significant factor in achieving greater transparency, legitimacy and efficiency within the Union. Yet it does not, in reality, live up to what it asks of itself. In practice, the consistent use of the three working languages German, English and French would, in fact, make it possible to reach the majority of the population.
Even the Internet presence of the current Presidency, which is in English, French and Czech, takes no account of the fact that German, with an 18% share of mother-tongue speakers in the EU, is the language with the most native speakers in the Union, while a further 14% of EU citizens speak it as a foreign language. I believe it is time that more attention was finally paid to this state of affairs.
Mr President, access to information is one of the cornerstones of democracy. People have to have the widest possible access to all information at the early stages of the decisions taken by the institutions, or on the background to these decisions, so that they can fully participate in the formulation of policies.
The EU aspires to be more democratic and accessible to its citizens, so granting the widest possible access to EU documents is crucial to the Union's efforts to increase citizens' confidence in its institutions and to the whole legitimacy of this institution. That is why I was rather disappointed at the Commission's proposal regarding this regulation, although I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the very good, dedicated and skilful work he has done in this context.
I would also like to thank Mrs Jäätteenmäki for her great efforts in this matter. Both of them have held to the guiding principles of openness and transparency where denying access to any document held by an institution is a definite exception. Such exceptions are, in some cases, necessary, but they should be limited to the smallest number on a clearly defined basis.
I also welcome the initiatives to push for the more proactive and clear disclosure of documents through improved Internet databases. Accessing documents is also a question of finding them. Often, information exists online but is hiding behind complex databases and here, we certainly need a lot more development.
Colleagues, we are defenders of democracy and, therefore, should have been more active already. We have to be very bold in defending broad access and transparency to all documents. I think that this is not the time to start compromising, or else we may compromise our status as good decision makers in the eyes of our voters as well.
(PL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate Michael Cashman on an outstanding report which affects one of the most important aspects of European democracy.
The European Union is undergoing systematic changes and transformations. Unfortunately, communication between the European Union and its citizens is not keeping up with these changes. The situation is similar with access to documents and information destined for the citizens themselves.
Transparency is a fundamental principle of the European Union, set out in Article 255 of the EC Treaty. Every citizen of the European Union and any natural or legal person residing or established in a Member State has the right to access European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
We can only get the citizens of Europe interested in and build their confidence in the EU institutions, in MEPs and national politicians if we provide complete and honest information. It is therefore our duty to increase the transparency and effectiveness of the institutions of the European Union to the greatest degree possible. We must focus on making it easier for users to access information and on continuing to simplify the system and its tools.
Although it could do with some improvement and streamlining, the regulation which affects this report provides a sound legal basis. I am therefore sorry that the Commission gave no consideration to the rapporteur's 2006 proposal on transparency.
Mr President, access to documents is one part of the process of transparency, but there are many other issues. The use of documents and information is key, and one of the big problems we have - and we acknowledge it, and the Commissioner in the Chamber currently is one of the best practised - is to get knowledge of the EU's decision-making process out there, because people do not understand the process. During the Lisbon Treaty debate in Ireland, people came up to me and said: 'you are urging us to vote 'yes' and you are going to lose your job'. They thought I was the Commissioner - perish the thought!
It is not enough to say that we give people loads of information, because in one sense, that would lead to a lack of transparency: it just covers things up with mountains of paper but no clarity. I would prefer that people fully understood how this place works and therefore could engage with it. I dare say that there are many in this House who do not fully know how this place works. I rest my case.
(LT) In an attempt to solve the Baltic countries' energy island problem, in particular with the growing threat to Lithuania's energy security following the closure of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant at the end of this year, the European Commission has drafted the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. I called on the European Commission's Directorate-General for Energy and Transport to provide an opportunity to see the document. I was told that there had been no discussion with the high level group drafting the strategy on the possibility of publicising information and documents, as formulated in the answer: Sharing with the outside world. The European Parliament is being classed as the outside world, to which information is not provided. Time and again we have discussed the opportunities available to society to see documents held by EU institutions, have we not? If a Member of the European Parliament representing citizens does not have such a right, this is a disastrous situation.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank the Members for an interesting debate and for their many valuable comments.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 will now be updated to 'version two', one might say. It is important to point out again that we are not starting from scratch: we already have a good basis, and it is just a matter of improving on that. This will also be a version for the age of the Internet, as was mentioned in the debate. Electronic registers will now be included, and add to that active dissemination, as examples of these improvements.
The ideal situation would, of course, be for us to disseminate information so actively that no requests for access have to be made since everything is already out there - with some exceptions, of course. I can give you one example of what can be done, which is that I have already made my own correspondence register available on the Internet, so you can see my correspondence and documents.
It is not possible for me to go through all the comments that were made during the debate, but I want to comment briefly on a few crucial points, one of which concerns the definition of documents under Article 3. This is one of the articles of the Commission's proposal that have been most discussed and, I admit, most criticised.
We maintain that the current definition leads to ambiguity and a risk of unpredictability and bad practice. Is this Post-It note a document, for example? Mr Cashman is saying it is, and according to the wide definition in the Regulation, it could very well be so - as could the other scribbles I have here. Sometimes it is not helpful to make a definition too broad. We still maintain a wide definition, but we will reduce the discretionary non-disclosure of documents. The definition that we propose is much wider than the notion of official documents often used in national legislation. It comes very close to the concept of information in the UK Freedom of Information Act and in the Dutch law on transparency, for example. The registration of documents is an obligation under internal Commission rules, but these do not determine whether a document falls within the scope of the regulation. So we clarified and helped with the definition of documents. This will also help citizens to know what is it you can and should ask for in order to get full information. A more precise definition of documents means safer administration and more clarity for citizens.
The Court has ruled that documents relating to an ongoing investigation are manifestly covered by an exception to the right of access and, therefore, that those files are currently not acceptable and this does not constitute additional restriction of the right of access. In no Member State do citizens have access to the files of the competition authorities - I just wanted to make that point.
I also acknowledge that we could have explained and phrased things better in Article 3. I believe we share the same goal, and thus it should also be possible to find a clear and unambiguous wording. This is an example of an area where we should be able to achieve a good compromise text.
Another fiercely discussed point is Article 5(2) concerning access to Member States' documents. Let me be clear that the Commission's intention has been to implement what the European Court of Justice has ruled, and Member States must effectively justify why they refuse access to one of their documents, just as the institutions do regarding all other documents. The bottom line will always be the rules in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
However, it is equally important that the Commission can have correspondence with Member States, for example, in the field of infringements of EU law. We need to have the possibility to quickly find satisfactory solutions from the perspective of both the Commission and EU citizens, as codified by EU law. Those kinds of contacts need to remain confidential, and that is also what the Court has said.
Finally, I shall just comment on the 'space to think' under Article 4(3). If we think carefully, I guess most people would agree that Parliament, as well as the Commission and the Council, needs a certain space to think. Documents related to decisions that have not yet been taken, or reflecting internal discussions, are not the same as other documents. What about the records of political group meetings or preparations? You have yourselves identified a number of problems and limitations arising from refusing a space to think, considering, again, what would benefit citizens most and what would be most helpful.
I must say that I would have preferred the Council to be here - as many of you have said - just as I would have preferred a fuller House, because these are absolutely crucial issues for all of us. The big task for us all in the next few weeks or months is to find common ground. That is also true within this House, and today's debate has shown that it is not always that easy. The more divisions there are, the more difficult it will be when the three institutions hold discussions. Parliament, the Council and the Commission each have their role, which should be respected, and I hope Parliament will speak with one strong voice, because that will benefit us all and benefit the end result, which I hope will be a balanced and workable compromise text.
rapporteur. - Mr President, those were interesting remarks, but I am afraid they have very little to do with the contents of my report.
I would point out that we have nothing to fear from public scrutiny and we have absolutely everything to fear as institutions from hiding information. We become more vulnerable. Commissioner, it is official documents which are accessible. Go back and look at the report. The space to think. Official documents. Within the notion of a space to think, that will not be official. Go back to the report. Accept our principles.
It has been an interesting debate but I have to say that the recast - which you defend - is not in the spirit of the interinstitutional agreement and it is not enough. You say it has worked well, but I am afraid the recast ignores vital jurisprudence on what actually needs to be done.
My reasons for delaying the final vote are so that we have absolutely maximum flexibility to negotiate with the political parties and with the institutions. I would further point out that there is nothing to prevent the Commission from amending its proposal at any time after the vote tomorrow, except perhaps institutional and political reluctance.
I find it somewhat patronising to be told that we will get action plans. Commissioner, I do not doubt your personal commitment to openness and transparency, but I do not want action plans for our citizens. I want rights enshrined in law which cannot be taken away - not gifts, but rights.
Parliament must therefore put political pressure on the Presidency to negotiate and it may be that we will have to negotiate without the Commission. Yes, Commissioner, I know the Council is not here, but I do not give up on one Council. I have been in politics long enough to know that you fight and you fight.
Let me finally quote this President, if you will allow me: 'My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government'. So said Barack Obama on 21 January 2009. I await a comparable announcement from the Commission or, indeed, from President Barroso.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 11 March 2009.
(The sitting was suspended at 11.45 a.m. and resumed at 12.50 p.m.)
Written statements (Rule 142)
The amendments by the European Parliament to the regulation on public access to the documents of the European institutions, especially to documents relating to the legislative procedure, are a catalytic step in safeguarding transparency and participatory democracy in Europe.
Particularly important in my opinion is the requirement that every initiative or document designed to somehow influence the decision-making procedure must be published.
We are all aware that various lobbies frequently try to influence the legislative procedure by putting forward their arguments. European citizens have every right to know what these arguments and interventions are. They must be able to judge the essence of them and evaluate the final stance taken by their governments, the European Commission and, of course, their MEPs.
At least the same level of transparency should also be provided at national level by the Member States for their citizens on the basis of an express requirement in the European Parliament report, a call which we hope will very shortly be adopted by governments and national parliaments.


Voting time
The next item is voting time.
(For details of the outcome of the vote: see Minutes)