AIDS
The next item is the Commission Statement on AIDS.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in recent years considerable progress has been made, broadly speaking, in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic, including better access to effective treatment and to prevention programmes. Nevertheless, the number of people infected with HIV or dying of AIDS continues to grow. By the end of 2006, almost 40 million people will have been infected with HIV, 2.6 million more than at the end of 2004. It is estimated that in 2006 4.3 million people, both adults and children, have been newly infected with HIV, which is 400 000 more than two years ago.
Sub-Saharan Africa remains at the forefront of this epidemic. More than 63% of all adults infected with HIV now live in Sub-Saharan African countries, and 33% in South Africa. The biggest increase in the past two years has been observed in Eastern Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where the number of people infected with HIV has risen by 21%. The continuing growth in the number of newly diagnosed infections in most EU Member States, together with the results of Eurobarometer surveys from 2005, indicate that levels of awareness on epidemics in the EU and in neighbouring countries must be raised as a matter of urgency and that prevention programmes in this field must be strengthened. The strategy set up by the Commission in 2005 was centred around the priority of strengthening prevention, treatment and care in certain regions.
Despite these disturbing figures, there has been a reduction in the incidence of AIDS in some African and Caribbean countries and in some regions of southern Asia. It is possible to reverse the trend. There are more women around the world infected with HIV than ever before. In 2006, the number of infected women has reached 17.7 million, a million cases more than in the last two years. The situation in Sub-Saharan African countries is worse still. Women account for 60% of adults of 15 years and above infected with HIV. In addition to biological factors, and the fact that women and girls are much more susceptible to becoming infected with HIV, social and economic factors arising from gender inequality and the neglect of their rights also play a part. Equal rights for women is a key social challenge and an essential prerequisite for even-handed development and increased HIV prevention. In order that girls and women around the world can gain access to sexual and reproductive health, health services in developing countries must be strengthened so as to establish voluntary counselling, medical examinations, healthcare and support, as part of an all-round package.
Access to medicines and healthcare has improved considerably in recent years, although in most countries it was starting from a very low base. Thanks to the increased provision of antiretroviral treatment, some 2 million lives have been saved in almost four years and even in countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, some 8 000 people have received treatment. Nevertheless, despite this welcome progress, the situation gives cause for concern, and the international community needs to devote more attention to it.
The Commission is setting up intensive assistance, for partner countries in Africa and elsewhere, geared towards combating epidemics by means of integrating prevention, treatment and care. HIV/AIDS cannot be viewed as an isolated problem because it highlights all of the major problems facing developing countries, namely restricted access to basic social services, gender inequality, unequal distribution of resources, ineffective public administration and low levels of economic and technological development. HIV/AIDS is closely linked with malaria and tuberculosis, which are also poverty-related infectious diseases. HIV/AIDS can only be combated successfully if the partner countries fight against it in the context of efforts to reduce poverty.
The main principle underpinning the European political framework adopted in 2004, and the European Programme for Action to Confront HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis adopted the following year, is an integrated approach to HIV. The European Programme for Action must be implemented and coordinated by the Commission, both at State and at worldwide level. It is indeed the partner countries that are in the best position to decide the most effective way of distributing resources effectively, fairly and transparently among the various initiatives.
Over the course of the years, the Commission has continually increased its resources in the fight against HIV/AIDS in all developing countries, especially in Africa, where it is providing assistance to partner countries via budgetary support in their efforts to address the structural factors underlying the HIV epidemic, such as healthcare reforms and the crisis in the area of human resources in the heath sector. Among other initiatives, the Commission has also invested a considerable amount of money, EUR 522 million over five years, in the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries from the global fund for the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. During 2006, the Commission's role in the global fund was fully confirmed by the fact that the board elected a Member of the European Commission to the post of Vice-President of the fund.
The Commission has traditionally taken the lead in efforts to improve access to antiretroviral drugs in developing countries and to ensuring the full availability of treatment and access to prevention for those who need them by 2010, and has played a central role in reducing the cost of pharmaceutical products. In some cases, there has been a reduction of up to 98%, which has been achieved by means of introducing a price varying mechanism that enables developing countries to pay less for patented medicines while protecting manufacturers from the re-import of these products into open markets where profits can be made.
Also in the framework of the WTO, the Commission is helping the poorest countries, whose production capacity is limited, to exercise their rights to import cheap generic medicines produced with compulsory licences. The Commission has also increased investment in the research and development of vaccines and other means of prevention, such as microbicides, with a view to broadening the existing range of HIV prevention mechanisms. The Commission will continue with these efforts to make prevention and treatment fully available to all those who need it by 2010.
As previous speakers have mentioned, the Commission has, in conjunction with the Member States, undertaken to fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic by means of a range of measures aimed at prevention, treatment, support and care. We are fully aware that the ultimate goal of a generation without AIDS is unattainable without firm political commitment, informed leadership and increased resources at global, national and local levels.
We face a huge challenge: making further progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS and ensuring that prevention and treatment will be fully available to all those who need them by 2010. We urgently need a more balanced strategy aimed at increasing prevention and treatment and ensuring access to affordable treatment, in particular as regards patented second-tier medicines. We must therefore mobilise the political will for this in Europe. We must work more closely with the pharmaceutical industry, focusing on developing new methods of prevention, in particular microbicides, which will provide better prevention for women and will ensure that new medicines are more affordable. The pharmaceutical industry must be encouraged to carry out research and to develop vaccines and other products to combat HIV/AIDS. Lastly, we must make sure that the partner countries receive long-term reliable funding to support them in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
In this connection, the Commission will continue to work, on a broader scale, with the help of the financial instruments at both national and global levels, including the global fund for the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. We need strong support and cooperation from all of the EU institutions, however, including Parliament, as they are responsible for the annual allocation of financial resources. In the fight against HIV/AIDS, we have the opportunity to achieve better results, but this requires political will. The Commission firmly believes that the ultimate aims, namely a generation without AIDS and making treatment and care available to all those who need it, are attainable. I look forward to working with Parliament to achieve those aims.
(Applause)
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - As we again approach World AIDS Day, we commemorate, we remember friends and we resolve to do more. We are now commemorating 25 years of AIDS. We remember the 25 million fellow citizens who have died from AIDS and we think of the 40 million living with AIDS. Many of them live in Europe and many in neighbouring countries to the east, such as Russia, Kaliningrad and Central Asia, but two-thirds live in sub-Saharan Africa.
We in the north have promised our support. We have earmarked money for this and then, all too often, lost it again. Science advances, but we have not yet delivered. Only 5% of HIV-positive children receive medical help. Fewer than 10% of the 15 million AIDS orphans receive financial support. Every year we have a resolution. A resolution is two things: a form of words and good intentions, or a determination to achieve those ends.
We need to invest in research and trials for the development of AIDS vaccines. We need to invest in service delivery and education for drugs and therapies, in mothers and children, in preventative campaigns, in health and care professionals and in NGO support teams. We need to pull out all the stops to meet the UN target of universal access to services, to treatment and to care by 2010, as the Commissioner said. The year 2010 is not far away, but we are.
(Applause)
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, our funding for HIV/AIDS prevention is still running well below target, falling behind by something like USD 12 billion. Therefore, as the Commissioner said, there is an urgent need for more public and private funding in order to address the shortcomings.
There is no single panacea for HIV eradication, but there has to be more education and more funding for vaccine research and for microbicides, which the Commissioner mentioned. The development of a vaginal microbicide has to be our immediate priority, and it is predicted that it could be developed and used within five years. It is the only way for women to have real control over their own sexual health. It is a method that does not require the consent of a partner.
In addition, AIDS treatments in the developing world will not, and cannot, be sustainable unless there is a supply of the newer versions of generic medicines, which are increasingly needed as drugs-resistant cases of HIV/AIDS become more frequent. That means we have to be much more audacious in the way we confront the patents that pharmaceutical companies continue to hide behind, making the price of treatment impossible to meet in many developing countries and under the kind of health systems my colleague, Mr Bowis, mentioned.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (LV) Mr President, Mr Špidla, I am pleased that the Commission has devoted the first section of this communication to the need to involve civil society in all aspects of combating this epidemic. This complies with the requirement put forward in the Dublin and Vilnius declarations. Information and the appropriate services which are provided by easily accessed support centres managed by non-governmental organisations to risk groups in society affected by HIV can significantly slow down the spread of AIDS in a country. As rapporteur, I am troubled by the fact that in several new Member States the continued existence of such a support centre is currently directly under threat as a result of a lack of financial resources. It turns out that, prior to accession to the European Union, these centres received multilateral financial support from various existing funds and organisations, including some outside Europe, which now, following the countries' accession to the European Union, consider their charitable missions to be at an end. Despite the undertaking of the Minister of Health, expressed in the Vilnius declaration, to use national financial instruments as well as EU funds, including Structural Funds, in the struggle against AIDS, in practice this is not happening in several Member States. In relation to the Structural Funds, the leaders of civil-society organisations point to the impossibility of obtaining cofinancing. I think that both the Member States and the European Commission need to resolve this issue urgently. Thank you.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that, in spite of the as yet minimal progress made when it comes to access to treatment, the disease is, unfortunately, not on the decline. On the contrary: in our own countries, in particular, the epidemic has, rather, gained ground. We are therefore delighted about the consensus taking shape in this House concerning the need definitely to review the TRIPS agreement on access to medicines, since the arrangements provided for within the framework of the Doha round do not, unfortunately, at present permit real access to inexpensive medicines.
That being said, the problem of AIDS is not only a problem of funding and of access to medicines. It might even be said that the emphasis placed on access to medicines has no doubt eclipsed the need to go on ceaselessly promoting prevention, which is now in decline both in our own countries and everywhere else. It is therefore essential to resume the prevention and information campaigns via the media, enlisting the help of qualified personnel, as well as on the social and medical networks, with a view to raising people's awareness.
Secondly - and this is something that you have pointed out and something that is no doubt the most difficult thing to achieve - we also need, if we are really to change the situation, to alter cultural practices when it comes to sexuality and, in particular, to protect women and enable women to protect themselves. Women now constitute 50% of patients, which was not the case at the beginning of the epidemic. They are also affected in an extremely brutal and violent way not only by cruel treatment and other practices that take place in time of war in conflict zones but also by rape, prostitution, trafficking in women and female sexual slavery - all scourges that help facilitate the growth of the epidemic. Consequently, the way in which the European Union promotes women's rights and equality also constitutes a very effective way of combating the epidemic and focusing on the transmission of the disease from mother to child - a mode of transmission that is rarely mentioned at present.
Innovative solutions do exist in some countries - for example, Malawi - where, by proceeding on the basis of decentralisation so as to get closer to the people and by also arranging for an active role to be played by the patients themselves - those whose condition has been stabilised - extremely positive results are achieved. This even applies in extremely poverty-stricken countries. We must therefore make much further progress on all these levels.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commissioner's speech sounds frankly rhetorical: it is full of fine statements, which are not matched by an equally positive role on the part of the European Commission. As the latest data from UNAIDS demonstrate, the number of HIV infections is continuing to grow and, in some countries, we are even seeing a fresh outbreak of the virus. Faced with all of this, patented drugs continue to be unaffordable, and the TRIPS agreements are creating an insurmountable obstacle to access to medicines, condemning almost three million people to death each year.
The ones taking advantage of this situation are the multinational pharmaceutical companies, which recorded a 24% increase in their profits in 2005; these multinationals are protected by the US Administration, which has never stopped using its political and commercial weight to influence the negotiations on pharmaceutical patents. At multilateral level, the Bush administration's agenda is aimed at making the safeguard clauses laid down by the TRIPS agreements unenforceable, clauses which, in the event of a health crisis, would allow the member countries to bypass intellectual property rights and to have access to lifesaving drugs.
However, while the United States can be rightly accused of attacking one of the most basic human rights, that of health care, Europe certainly cannot consider itself blameless. The inertia shown by the Commission and the Member States when it comes to equipping themselves with a Community regulation that is genuinely able to implement the Doha Declaration must be well and truly condemned. Commissioner, you said that a few thousand Africans were receiving treatment, but, in Africa, 30 million people are HIV-positive, 6.5 million of whom require treatment. Tomorrow is World AIDS Day: global civil society is asking once and for all for politics to shoulder its responsibilities, which concern not only the issue of access to medicines but also the funding allocated to prevention and research programmes. The creation of an international market in generic medicines, supported by a new system of medical research geared towards people's real needs, remains the crucial issue.
For this reason, we in the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left believe that it is crucial for the resolution on which the House will vote to commit the Commission and the Council to: 1) acknowledge the failure of the decision of 30 August 2003; 2) propose within the WTO to amend the TRIPS agreements and the new procedures for granting compulsory licences, which must be able to respond swiftly to health emergencies caused by the HIV epidemic; 3) allocate EUR 1 billion to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, as was already requested by Parliament on 2 December 2004 and ignored by the Commission and the Council; 4) dedicate more resources to research into medicines designed to treat diseases specifically affecting the south of the world and oblige the private sector, which has always benefited from public research, to set aside a reasonable amount of its own research for these neglected diseases. Too much time and energy has been wasted on making false promises; it is now time to act!
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard many fine words and statements from the Commission, and a fair amount of demagogy from various Members. We are confronted here with actions that are not outlined in the Commission document, but that are nonetheless necessary.
The fact is, we must take a decisive stand in fighting the spread of drug use, which means zero tolerance, help and rehabilitation for those who are, to all intents and purposes, sick and should be treated as such. We should not praise sexual promiscuity, which the mass media and opinion leaders today regard and portray as the path to follow. We need a policy that educates people but that also discourages high-risk behaviour, and a policy of informed parenthood for those affected. We also need to launch a serious fight against prostitution, which we are very far from doing in our Europe, and we certainly also need to do more in terms of monitoring, testing and, of course, treating and preventing infectious diseases, as described in the document.
We are not on the right track, however, Mr President, when I still hear my fellow Members and when I read speeches preaching 'freedom', freedom that, for society, means inertia and, for civilisation, in this case, means regression.
(PL) Like malaria and other diseases, the current situation regarding AIDS presents a wide range of challenges involving education, prevention, research, care and treatments.
Firstly, proper sexual health education is needed, especially in poor countries. The issue is promiscuity arising due to social and economic circumstances, which I learned about, for example, on sugar cane plantations in the Dominican Republic. Economic conditions need to be improved, and social values and rules changed. This would create the right circumstances for positive changes in sexual behaviour and there would then be an end to morally controversial procedures on human foetuses.
Secondly, scientific research may be expensive and often a financial risk, but it must be carried out: both vaccines and treatment against the viruses need to be found. For this reason international research groups must be supported.
Thirdly, society needs to care for those afflicted by the virus, and especially for AIDS orphans whose unfortunate situation is the result of other peoples' sexual behaviour.
Fourthly, only a minute percentage of the 40 million individuals infected with the HIV virus currently has access to medication and medical aid. This is where we have the most opportunities to act. Medication can be made available to many more carriers if suitable policies are put in place.
(NL) Mr President, the World Fund is already the biggest fund in the worldwide fight against the diseases in question, and I take pride in the fact that the EU accounts for 65% of the contributions to it. The President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, has made out a case for the World Fund and has committed to it, which is enormously laudable. Europe has a responsibility in respect of the rest of the world, and this Fund fleshes out this responsibility.
Let me let you in on a big scandal, though. Next year, it looks like Mr Barroso will be unable to deliver on his promise to the World Fund. It appears that the money from the European Development Fund that was earmarked for the World Fund in 2007 has already been spent on other things. The Commission wants to plug this hole by extracting funds from the general development budget, which means removing funds from the budget for education, gender equality, the fight against poverty and hunger and the fight against child labour.
Surely, Mr President, this cannot be justified to all those people who rely on our support and on the undertakings we have given. How can the Commission ask us to choose between the fight against deadly diseases and all other things we stand for, which we have made provision for in the budget, on the one hand and the contributions to achieving the Millennium Objectives on the other?
In matters of life and death, it should not be a case of having to make choices. If you manage to set aside 1 billion for infrastructure and 3 billion for good governance from the European Development Fund for the next few years, then you may be able to scrape together 100 million annually for the World Health Fund.
Mr Barroso, the President of the Commission, should free up this 100 million, not at the expense of education, child labour or care for women, but from the European Development Fund. Maybe we should allocate a little less for infrastructure and these other items. If you get your priorities right, you are on the right track; if not, you have neglected to do any sound forward planning and have, as a result, caused quite a bit of damage. I would call on the Commission to have another close look at this.
The availability of antiretroviral therapy does not just bring hope to AIDS sufferers themselves. It also transforms attitudes to AIDS in the wider population. The knowledge that effective treatment is available is a key factor in encouraging people to be tested for HIV. The more people are aware of their HIV status, the easier it is to control the spread of the disease.
That is why it is particularly worrying that the price of new, improved and second-line AIDS medicines remains prohibitively high. It is good news that the price of some established first-line AIDS drugs has come right down, but figures from South Africa and Malawi indicate that up to one in six patients will need to switch to newer drug combinations within three to five years.
What can the Commission do to persuade pharmaceutical companies to register their newer drugs in developing countries and make those newer drugs available at affordable prices? Failing that, we will soon be back to square one. The drugs that still work will be unaffordable and donors, including the EU, will effectively be donating to the pharmaceutical industry.
(ES) Mr President, we are still a long way from winning the fight against HIV-AIDS; all we need is political will, however.
The numbers are clear: the vast majority of new infections occur in the developing countries, which means that HIV is one of the main factors slowing down the progress of thousands of settlements and communities.
We are therefore talking about a global emergency, from both health and from social and economic points of view. We know what the problem is and we know how to prevent it and treat it. In order to do so, however, we need resources, political responsibility, responsibility on the part of economic sectors and social and cultural responsibility.
For example, amongst other measures, we must guarantee universal access to vital medicines, something which is still not possible due to the greed of certain economic sectors, especially the pharmaceuticals sector, which has no scruples in this regard, and it therefore clearly shares responsibility for mass murder on a global scale.
Furthermore, certain arguments from ultra-conservative sectors against sexual and reproductive health share responsibility for this situation. For example, given the information we have, to oppose appropriate sex education for everybody, particularly the youngest people, in this day and age, is, however you look at it, an affront against life and dignity, and is quite frankly immoral.
This year once again, therefore, we must call for actions, for commitment, and above all we must demand that promises be kept.
(HU) Mr President, we all know of the importance of the struggle against AIDS, and should be aware of our responsibility in this regard as well. It is to this that I attribute the fact that my opinion, submitted last week, has received so many proposed amendments.
Last year there were nearly 40 million people on record living with AIDS, and the illness has truly reached every corner of the world. There are several reasons for its spread. Lack of information is first among these, but other important factors have been drug use and the lack of preparation on the part of some countries' health care systems. In my own country, testing was introduced 20 years ago, and it is to this that we owe the fact that the situation is not bad, yet problems are nonetheless present. The virus is spread 90% through sexual contact and 10% through drug use.
Two further experiences: untreated sexually transmitted infections increase exponentially the risk of AIDS. People with HIV and AIDS find it much more difficult to obtain suitable medical care, if they are able to get any at all. The importance of prevention cannot be emphasised enough, and this includes information. This is especially important among highly vulnerable social groups and for secondary school students. We must take action. We have to help countries outside the Union as well, especially in neighbouring areas. The number of those diagnosed with the infection is constantly growing in some neighbouring countries. Reciprocal action is in the interests of us all. An integrated approach is needed, as the Commissioner has also stated, and we must take action. We all need to be partners in this effort.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this resolution is a step in the right direction. I should like to add that the fight against AIDS is also an issue of governance, which must be dealt with at local level.
I would remind you that in 2007, that is to say at present, 50% of the world's population live in cities. In many African cities, prevention and health care require local authorities to be involved in making those same cities more responsive to local needs and in removing social taboos, which are often very powerful. We must cooperate directly with the cities in order to help them manage their health services and in order to provide them with increased funding.
I should have liked our resolution to have put forward a larger number of practical solutions to be employed on the ground. We could have asked the Commission to make it easier to offer combined treatments in the form of medicines combining three types of remedy in one and the same capsule - an arrangement that would have greatly simplified the treatment of patients living in areas in which hospitals, medicines and laboratories are few in number. We must promote the use of such treatments, ladies and gentlemen, as we have a pressing duty: to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for a debate which has shed light on this serious, worldwide problem from a number of perspectives. I think I can say that no objections have emerged in the debate that would undermine the broad strategic value of this document, in terms of either the ideas in the statement or the definition of the areas for action and the goals we need to achieve.
I should like to emphasise the fundamental idea that the only way to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic is with the kind of coordinated, holistic approach that is currently deployed in the fight against poverty, in other words, preventative mechanisms that incorporate cultural norms, education, common sense, screening and care for the sick, including appropriate treatment. I think it is safe to say that the current results cannot be regarded as a success. Neither can we view them as empty words, since the progress that has been made is not inconsiderable. As for the fund, there has been a significant amount of financing. The EU is also providing significant resources to finance a range of projects in all countries and there have been some successes. The TRIPS agreement has been mentioned. As of this year, medicines can be produced more cheaply. I mentioned the fact that there have been times when prices have fallen by 98%. This is indeed noteworthy progress, but in no way could it be called a success. There is no doubt that we need to redouble our efforts.
I should now like to turn to two specific issues, which I feel require a particular response. It was mentioned - though I am not sure I have understood correctly - that in the new Member States there are no suitable centres monitoring this epidemic. This observation is untrue; these centres are everywhere. If we compared their quality of course, we might find that some are better than others. Under the European Treaty there are not many possibilities for direct control, but the idea that these centres do not exist has no basis in reality.
A further problem that was mentioned is the financing of the Fund against AIDS. The Commission has responded to the fact that the Member States are not contributing anything in 2007 by restructuring the resources. I think that one could debate whether this restructuring process has been carried out in the best possible manner, and whether different approaches might be considered, but I also think that the idea of restructuring was in essence a good one, because AIDS is a problem of massive proportions.
In spite of this I believe that if Member States have undertaken to make certain contributions, which would not be significant amounts in relation to their GDP, they should fulfil that commitment. The overall amount of money is very significant, but in relation to GDP it is an amount that can be released in the context of national budgets. It is up to us to channel our efforts into reversing this unacceptable situation, because failure to do so would be unjustifiable and indefensible. I should also like to emphasise the importance of equal opportunities, which will undoubtedly make a significant contribution to overcoming this phenomenon and improving the situation.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is a strange quirk of human nature that we push some things into the background and bring others to the foreground. Take avian flu, for example, and the attention devoted to it. I do not wish, in any way, to underplay that tragedy, but HIV/AIDS is obviously a vastly more significant problem and yet we are unfortunately not devoting the same level of attention to it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for this debate, which I feel has enabled us to advance further down this path. We must of course be aware that however much we channel all our efforts into resolving the problem, it is a worldwide problem and the chances of our making progress are thus limited. However, as the debate has clearly demonstrated, we must do all that we can to make use of those chances.
To conclude the debate, I have received six motions for resolutions.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.00 a.m.


Developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs Grabowska, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the perspectives for developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon.
Mr President, Commissioner, we are changing the subject to discuss contact between the European Union's institutions and its citizens. These contacts are inadequate. There is a deep divide between the Union and its citizens, yet Jean Monnet pointed out that the Union was being created for the citizens rather than for countries and governments.
The Union is enlarging and acquiring more citizens, but its institutions have difficulty in establishing contact with the citizens. This became evident through the painful experience of the French and Dutch 'No' to the Treaty of Lisbon. It is true, nonetheless, that the Union's institutions are endeavouring to improve their contacts with the citizens. They are opening up to them, and are clearly recognising the role of civil society. There is an ever increasing range of Union communication policies in this area. The new term civil dialogue has even been coined to describe these policies. More is required, however. The European Parliament is therefore endeavouring to rise to this challenge, and attempting to create a suitable mechanism for the purpose and promote contacts of this nature between the European Union's institutions and its citizens. This would resolve the issue of lack of democracy and demonstrate that the citizens also play an important role in the decision-making process within the European Union.
Article 10 of the Treaty of Lisbon states that 'Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.' There is also an additional provision making it possible for one million citizens of the European Union to take a legislative initiative. Following entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, one million citizens will be able to approach the European Commission and invite it to submit a legislative proposal on a subject of importance to the citizens.
That is why I refer to civil dialogue in this report. The latter is a dialogue that is not defined in law. It is essential, however, and I would like it to be guided by the following principles, or rather to guide itself by them. Firstly, I have introduced the principle of civil society representation into this report. I would like civil society to be suitably represented at the level of the European Union, that is to say, I would like it to be represented by partners that reflect and represent the interests at issue correctly.
I would like civil dialogue to be a reciprocal, two-sided process. This means it should not just involve the European Union approaching citizens, and the latter responding. The Union should also inform citizens when their views have been taken into account and explain what the implications of those views have been. That is why we also need feedback from the Union to the citizens.
I would like civil dialogue to be based on the principles of clarity and transparency. We should be governed by clear rules when inviting representatives of society to engage in dialogue with us. We should systematically publish the list of organisations involved in consultation. It would be wise for the Union to appoint a contact person responsible for this area, namely dialogue.
It is not easy to establish rules governing this area. The European Commission already drafted principles for strengthening a culture of consultation and dialogue back in 2002, and I therefore hope it will be prepared to draft the appropriate principles. These would become common principles for all the institutions. I should like to add too that the Member States should also be required to promote civil dialogue. I have been unable to mention every part of this report. I would, however, like the content to be put to the test at the first available opportunity, namely during the 2009 European election campaign. I would like us to take advantage of that occasion and take a first step towards contact with European citizens, making them aware of the best the Union has to offer and learning from them what we should be fighting for in this House.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all the Commission would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Grabowska, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs for their excellent report.
We agree that civil society plays an important role in European integration. It is one of the key tools for communication between European institutions, EU society and EU citizens. It helps citizens to exercise their right to participate in the democratic life of the Union.
The Commission has a long and healthy tradition of interaction with civil society organisations. This cooperation between the Commission and civil society has grown, covering a wide variety of issues from policy dialogue to project management, both within the EU and in our partner countries.
The Treaty of Lisbon would put our existing practices on a more formal footing and provide a fresh impetus to further enhance them. It would also open the door to another option for civil society to operationalise its views through the Citizens' Initiative.
Involving interested parties in an active dialogue requires the provision of appropriate instruments for civil society to express its opinions and be heard. The EU institutions also need equally appropriate instruments to ensure that what we hear from civil society and citizens is properly picked up and put into the system. The Commission welcomes the fact that the current report supports many of the ideas the Commission is already putting into effect.
Through its mandate, the current Commission has taken a series of initiatives to involve civil society organisations and individual citizens in a public debate on EU issues. One of the more innovative examples of these efforts has been the citizens' consultations, experimenting with deliberative polling and face-to-face consultations.
To understand people's needs and expectations, over the past 35 years the Eurobarometer has been developed into a very valuable tool for monitoring public opinion in Europe. Neither the Commission nor Parliament can, however, single-handedly organise a Europe-wide public debate. This will only be possible if EU institutions and Member States work together. That is the purpose of the political declaration on 'Communicating Europe in Partnership' signed by Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 22 October 2008.
In this context, the Commission and Parliament are already coordinating efforts with the Member States via the management partnerships, which include regional and local campaigns on specific issues, linking up with action by local authorities and NGOs. Eleven new management partnerships in 2009 will make this approach even more effective.
The Commission shares the view that fruitful dialogue depends on the active participation of all sides: the EU institutions, the Member States and civil society. The Commission hopes that the Lisbon Treaty will come into force and stands ready to take the necessary action to put its provisions into practice and to continue developing civil dialogue.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
If the European Union is to be truly democratic and close to its citizens, close cooperation is required at local, regional and national level between the Union's institutions and its Member States on the one hand and civil society on the other.
Civil society represents many non-governmental and not-for-profit organisations established by the citizens of their own free will. It plays a vital part in the process of European integration as it makes the positions and wishes of the Union's citizens known to the European institutions. It is therefore very important to provide the citizens with effective and reliable information and to make civil dialogue more popular. This is particularly so regarding the promotion and dissemination of the European Union's actions and intentions, the development of a European network of cooperation and strengthening European identity amongst civil society.
Greater political awareness, a more effective civil dialogue and broader public debate are needed if the Union is to achieve its political aims and intentions.
The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens citizens' rights in relation to the Union by making it easier for them and for associations representing civil society to participate in debates on the so-called citizens' Europe.
The institutions of the European Union should cooperate more closely in order to develop European civil dialogue and encourage Union citizens to engage more with Europe. It is essential to encourage wider participation by the citizens in European debates and discussions. The citizens should also be actively involved in the coming elections to the European Parliament. After all, as Jean Monnet stated, we are not creating a Union for countries and governments, we are creating it for the citizens.
Membership in a civil society organisation provides European citizens with the opportunity to take active part in policy-making. In view of attaining EU goals, the active involvement of citizens in this process and the creation of concrete, tangible opportunities for them to take initiatives, provide feedback and express criticism and contrary opinions present a true challenge. However, since there is no single, precise legal definition of a civil society organisation, this can present difficulties.
In order that EU citizens might recognise the advantages the European Union offers them, we need to continue to expand democracy, increase transparency and improve the effectiveness of the EU's operation. The democratic deficit in most cases results from the fact that citizens do not always have access to essential information. Some of the documents relating to the Community decision-making process are still not accessible, and thus we need to continue the process aimed at further increasing the accessibility of Community working documents.
The mechanism of consultation forms an integral part of the activities of European institutions. We need to lay down general principles and a minimum set of rules regarding consultation and to establish a framework for consultation that is consistent yet flexible enough to adapt to the particular expectations of the parties concerned.
in writing. - (DE) This report sends a clear signal for bringing the EU closer to its citizens and proposes tangible steps towards making this goal a reality.
We call upon all EU institutions to make dialogue with civil society an important across-the-board task in their political work.
People only support the EU if they are informed about political projects and activities and are able to participate in decision-making, for example through consultations. With the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland we have seen what negative consequences deliberately disseminated misinformation can have for European integration. This must be prevented in future by a pro-active information and dialogue policy. This also applies particularly to the Council and to the governments of the Member States, which should make a more active effort to provide better information about the EU.
Access to documents from all the EU institutions must be made easier and improved so that every citizen can obtain an impression of their work.
Our aim is to build a strong European civil society as the basic prerequisite for the development of a European public area. Therefore, we demand the creation finally of the necessary framework conditions, which means, primarily, a charter for European associations, as well as the necessary basic infrastructure for active citizens at European level.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report by Mrs Grabowska on the perspectives for developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon is an example of a waste of time and resources. A fundamental question therefore arises. What is this debate actually all about? After all, the Treaty of Lisbon is dead. Ireland rejected it in a national referendum. This means that the aforementioned document does not have legal force. Building anything on it is like building on sand, without foundations. To build upon a treaty that does not really exist because it was rejected is a violation of democracy and of equal rights for free nations. This all brings to mind the definition of democracy. As I understand it, democracy is a free choice, not something that is imposed and which disregards the will of the people. It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy, not a particular interest group. The supreme expression of the will of the people is a referendum, not a decision taken by a ruling clique, contrary to the will of the people. Is that so difficult to understand?
I would like to congratulate Mrs Grabowska on her wonderful report which I am sure will contribute to improve and develop civil dialogue. There is a great deal that can be said about the development of dialogue between the European Union's citizens and its institutions. As chairwoman of a citizens association in Bulgaria, I firmly believe that this is one of the most important elements for the future development of Europe which needs to be urgently reformed and improved.
I believe that this report will enable the European Parliament to give the necessary guidelines and recommendations to the other institutions, but also to the civil organisations because, without their cooperation and participation, we will be unable to achieve the objective that we have set ourselves.
The report proposes an equal dialogue, taking into account the differences between and independence of the many associations. It will promote civil participation in the political process with a view to tackling the serious challenges it is facing, both at a national and European level. This is why it is vitally important that we find a differentiated approach in order to produce results at a local level because of the different level of development, both in different countries and in different sectors.
I am counting on the other institutions and the Member States taking into account our recommendations as soon as possible, even if the Lisbon Treaty does not come into force soon.


Membership of political groups: see Minutes


Stockholm Action Plan (debate)
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the Stockholm Action Plan.
The previous debate was very interesting, but we have exceeded our allocated time, so I ask all those who are about to speak to stick closely to the time allocated.
Madam President, the European area of freedom, security and justice is one of the European Union's greatest achievements. It is one of the advances in cooperation between Member States, civil cooperation, criminal cooperation and internal security. It is one of the most important results of the European project and one of the results that has come closest to achieving what the European Union always fails to achieve, which is relating to the public.
It is definitely this aspect of the Union's policies that its citizens feel adds the most value in the most important aspects of their daily life, in enjoying their freedoms, for example, security. This is undoubtedly one of the great achievements of the area of freedom, security and justice.
There were even some decisions adopted by the Council in this area of freedom, security and justice before the Treaty of Lisbon - when the area was practically intergovernmental - which concern the subject we were debating before: the investigation of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes at national level.
For example, the Council decisions of 13 June 2002 and 8 May 2003 established the capacity for the Member States to cooperate at national, intergovernmental level to prosecute these crimes, which fortunately - and we all remember the case of General Pinochet - are even part of the legislation in some Member States.
For example Spain, not to mention other countries, has what is called universal justice, which means crimes that are so serious that even if they have been committed outside a country they can be tried there, if possible, even if that means going beyond the sacred principle of territoriality in criminal law. This principle has been waived in practice by some states where crimes that are particularly intolerable and deeply damaging to the dignity of humanity itself can be prosecuted even outside the territory in which they are committed.
One aspect of this area of freedom, security and justice is what has been called the Stockholm Programme, at a time when the Treaty of Lisbon is already opening up this area not only to the intergovernmental sphere but also to the sphere that is strictly and clearly the EU. It is clearly particular to the EU method and therefore gives Parliament and the Court of Justice leading roles that they did not have before.
The Stockholm Programme is extremely important, which is why we welcome its adoption by the Council in December 2009 and subsequently by the European Council. It is a programme that sets out a clear programme of work for the European Union and its Member States, and places the interests and needs of the people at the heart of its priorities for the next few years.
It is therefore an extremely important programme. The programme establishes - and if you will allow me I will refer once again to the previous debate - the obligation for the Member States to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in the prosecution of crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity, so that they do not go unpunished. This is part of the Stockholm Programme that was adopted at the end of last year under the Swedish Presidency.
We are therefore talking about an extremely important programme, which must be implemented and set out in detail. In this respect, we recognise the importance of the communication from the Commission entitled 'Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme', which presents initiatives to help implement the programme.
The Stockholm Programme enables us to build on previous achievements and face new challenges, taking advantage of the new opportunities presented by the Treaty of Lisbon. It is a new era. Institutionally, it is probably, to a greater extent, a genuine revolution - if you will allow me to speak so emphatically - because it is a genuine legal and institutional revolution for an area of freedom, security and justice that was previously entirely in the intergovernmental sphere to now clearly move into the EU sphere. This is initially taking shape in the important Stockholm Programme. The Council acknowledges the importance that Parliament has as the colegislator, as an institutional partner, in relation to the majority of the measures that we are going to adopt in the next five years.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members, you know it already, but let me briefly present you with the action plan of the Commission, entitled 'Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens', an action plan implementing the Stockholm Programme. This action plan is a guide for very concrete measures to be taken during the next five years.
But first let me go back a step: it has been proven by events of the last weeks and months that there is a shared sense of urgency to confront the economic and social situation of Europe, as well as a very clear expectation from our citizens that the EU must act rapidly and decisively. You will recall the adoption of the work programme of the Commission at the end of March, the content of which showed that the Commission not only has the intention but is already taking action. It focused, among other things, on the need for the EU to build a citizens' agenda which puts the people at the heart of European action. The action plan in the area of justice and home affairs is the first strategic initiative of the new Commission in order to put this work programme into practice; it follows very closely the mandates, as well as the broader philosophy, of the Stockholm Programme, and it takes into consideration the proposals and suggestions by Parliament and by the Council.
The challenge of ensuring the respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, while also integrating and guaranteeing security in Europe, is addressed here in what we think to be a comprehensive way. The set of initiatives laid down are a roadmap - a roadmap to a free and secure Europe. We believe that you cannot separate freedom from security: they are two sides of the same coin; they are all related to the citizens and this is one way of getting citizens more acquainted with Europe.
The action plan will guide us in delivering an ambitious set of very concrete measures in a field where the added value of Europe will be very visible to our citizens. It is also a powerful message reiterating what we have been discussing before, that the Treaty of Lisbon and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are actions for the citizens. As all these actions are interlinked, indispensable and consistent with the scale of ambition which have been fixed in the Treaty of Lisbon and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have to reach this ambitious outcome as quickly as possible in line with citizens' expectations.
That is also why Parliament should not view this action plan as being carved in stone; there might be unexpected events, and if there are such unexpected events, the Commission will certainly make use of its right of initiative in order to help solve the problems. That is why we have the intention - and this will be important for Parliament - to submit a mid-term review of the implementation of the Stockholm Programme in 2012, in order to ensure that the programme remains in line with European and global developments.
But, as the Minister-in-Office of the Council already has rightly said, this action plan is not only about what the European Commission is going to propose. It is also very much about what the Member States are going to do: how the Member States are going to take their initiatives where subsidiarity is at stake; how they are going to implement European Union decisions in their national law; and how they are going to collaborate with other Member States.
Therefore, this action plan will only be a success story in the end if all the institutions play their role, and I am very confident that Parliament will help us to advance quickly on the right road.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Commission for its timely presentation of a very concrete action plan to empower European citizens. I have been very active in the discussions in Parliament because I truly believe that the Stockholm Programme is the best way forward to a citizen-centred Europe: a Europe for citizens, with the people.
I therefore invite the Commission to stick to the vision of the Stockholm Programme when presenting the specific proposals for the next five years. The programme adopted represents a real balance between providing security to citizens while respecting their rights, freedoms and integrity, and strengthening their citizenship.
On the action plan, I particularly welcome the measures presented recently to combat trafficking in human beings and child abuse and to increase the protection of unaccompanied minors - to mention just a few. I also welcome the fact that the action plan includes a strategy to combat female genital mutilation, domestic violence and violence against women. I nevertheless wish that this proposal could have been presented earlier than scheduled, Madam Commissioner.
We also need to encourage the participation of citizens during the process and ensure the transparency of decision making and the openness of documents. I hope that the measures will be presented in a user friendly way.
To conclude, I look forward to continuing working with my colleagues in Parliament, and with the Commission and the Council, to really deliver an area of freedom, security and justice, and make it a reality.
I would like to make a few general and a few specific remarks regarding the plan. Of course we consider the Stockholm Programme to be very important. It is precisely for this reason that the action plan has been somewhat disappointing, since its ambitions do not truly reflect the importance this Parliament has attached to it or the size of the majority with which it voted on amendments on several topics. We see that the most important or many important points in the plan have been deferred until 2013-2014, and as regards this year, we can already see a certain level of slippage. It seems to be a general problem as well that cooperation between the Commission and Parliament with regard to international treaties has not yet been clarified. Although the feedback has improved considerably, such as the feedback on the SWIFT and TFTP negotiations with the US, there are still some points that have yet to be clarified.
I wish to make a few concrete proposals: we regret that hate speech does not appear in the draft legislation but only the reports and the framework decision referring to implementation appear among the plans. Likewise, the provision of information on human rights is not sufficiently categorical. We know that implementation is related to the degree to which people are aware of their rights. In connection with immigration, I would like to mention that cooperation has begun but there seems to be an inadequate level of ambition. There are two other important issues. The first concerns reciprocity on visas, where new, effective solutions are needed due to both the reintroduction of the visa requirement and inequalities. The second concerns the free movement of labour where it is important to put an end to the discrimination that continues to exist against new Member States.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the Stockholm Programme is undoubtedly ambitious, but we still need to adopt an action plan that would implement it in the most efficient way. Efficiency means not only a suitable timetable, but it also refers to the content of the legislation that we will adopt in the coming years and to the institutions that will be built upon in the future.
If we want the Union to be more coherent, we have to work towards a level of trust and mutual recognition in the judicial area or on police cooperation, similar to the principle which has governed the EU single market. To achieve it, we need to shift our views on our legal traditions, which should no longer be perceived, used or misused to prevent us having minimum standards, particularly in criminal law.
Our citizens demand and deserve better protection against terrorism and against organised or trans-border crime. It is our duty to provide for this protection, but we have to do it while fully respecting not only the rights of the victims but also those of the defendants as well. This is why minimal procedural standards must apply to all EU Member States and if we need to be bold for these, we shall be. We will be bold when entrusting Eurojust with more power or when we have to protect the data of our citizens or when we will have to regulate on the asylum package.
My political group is determined to constructively work with the Commission and the Council and, at the same time, to persistently fight for the protection of human rights.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Madam President, listening to the Commissioner and the Council representative on the Stockholm Programme, some questions come to mind.
It is now close to the end of the Spanish Presidency, with five weeks to go. At the beginning, we heard great ideas from the Spanish Presidency on asylum, migration, the Anti-Discrimination Directive and the emancipation of women, but I must say that, with five weeks to go, I wonder where the concrete results and proposals are.
The Commission and Parliament did their work on asylum and migration, and we are really waiting for the Council to act. It is not only - as Commissioner Reding said - the individual Member State that needs to implement its laws. It is the Council that needs to come up with ideas on Dublin, on the Reception Directive, on the Eurodac system and on the Qualification Directive. We really are waiting for it.
The Anti-Discrimination Directive is something this plenary voted for and the Greens are really waiting for that. Turning to the Commission on that issue, equality and anti-discrimination are, of course, fundamental basics in the Stockholm Programme, but why did the Commission not choose to make same-sex partnerships a priority for this action plan? You said people would be put at the centre. Organising same-sex partnerships is putting people at the centre. Could you give me an explanation as to why?
With regard to Europol, in the pre-Lisbon era, Europol was submitted to a minimum of scrutiny by Parliament, and that is still the case, although we now have the Lisbon Treaty. For example, the competence to enter into negotiations for cooperation agreements with third countries is based on Council decisions that date from a couple of years back. It is rumoured that Europol is now discussing a treaty with Israel, and who knows what other countries are being approached for treaties. The Lisbon Treaty gives Parliament a new role, and I would like the Commission to act upon it.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 170 measures in five years, numbers that are too ambitious for a programme devoid of any real connotation, especially when it comes to certain issues.
Where immigration is concerned, the programme is embarrassingly weak when you look beyond the official documents: what is the point of promising to strengthen bodies and agencies if there is then no political strategy? A truly useful strategy that must be based on some firm points: the fight against illegal immigration along the southern border, ensuring that responsibilities for opposing illegal immigration are shared between all European States, a policy of agreements with third countries, especially the recognition that immigration is not a resource at a time of crisis.
Parliament's homepage tells us that more than 20% of young people in Europe are unemployed. On a continent where 25 million people are out of work, the Commissioner for Home Affairs says that the issue of immigration must be based on solidarity. Instead, what is really needed is joined-up reasoning and realism: today, our priority is giving work to our citizens! All the rest is do-gooding rhetoric that does not help immigrants to integrate, and certainly does not help our people.
(ES) Madam President, we are talking about more than 360 actions in five years. From my perspective, the presentation of the action plan should have been given more time in Parliament in order to give Members the opportunity to debate and, more importantly, to amend the proposals.
Let us look at some examples: combating radicalisation; monitoring terrorist funding and the possibility of creating a European Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP); the coordination of the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen), Europol and Eurojust in the fight against terror and organised crime; combating the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes; amending the Frontex Regulation; and the viability of creating a European border guards system. Along with what I have mentioned, there is a great deal more that has been said. These are very important issues that would have been worthy of a different parliamentary format.
In addition it is notable that in relation to protecting the victims of crime, the plan only proposes one measure: creating a global instrument for protecting victims, which will include victims of terrorism. I believe - and this would be an amendment that I have not been able to table due to the rules - that the creation of a special instrument to protect the victims of terrorism should be an inalienable priority for the European Union. I would like to stress that this is my view.
To conclude, Mrs Reding, with reference to Europol, I would like to know why a Council decision is going to be replaced by a Europol regulation by 2013.
(SK) There are several areas in the action plan of the Stockholm Programme I would like to talk about, and as we have to move on, I will name these problem areas.
I definitely consider the EU's common asylum system to be a problem area, which we have discussed together at least several times here, where, on the one hand, the Commission talks of the need for legal migrants or immigrants to be successfully integrated into the common system but, on the other, the action plan displays very little ambition in this direction.
Likewise, it appears that we do not expect a proposal for the unified processing of asylum applications until 2014, and therefore no mutual recognition of the rights of refugees between EU Member States either. Your plans are nonetheless quite concrete in the area of restricting the influx and movement of immigrants or migrants, for example, seasonal workers.
So, to be brief, there is no progressive and fair common asylum system in sight, and the plan specifies rather repressive measures.
I would like to mention at least two more areas. The first is the sad fact that, even in the Commission's own words, progress over the mutual recognition of registered same-sex partnerships within an EU framework is not a priority, and the sidetracking of this topic really concerns me.
The final area I would like to mention is the rights of corporations. The Stockholm Action Plan often mentions citizens and their rights, but very clearly emphasises the freedom of business without sufficient regulations, which is at least surprising, particularly in the context of the current financial and economic crisis.
Madam President, for me, the best bit of the action plan is the list of five concrete measures regarding rights of the individual in criminal proceedings that comprise the roadmap endorsed by the Stockholm Programme.
I speak as rapporteur on the first of these measures on interpretation and translation for defendants on which, I am pleased to say, I reached provisional agreement with the Spanish Presidency this very morning and I hope that our respective institutions will endorse that result.
I do thank Commissioner Reding for her staunch support as we drew solidly on the Commission proposal and Commission representatives made a full contribution, so my personal thanks to her.
We are finally, a decade overdue, but finally building the mutual trust necessary for mutual recognition. My support for the European arrest warrant is qualified by my dismay and indeed anger at some miscarriages of justice and the way it currently operates such as in the cases of Gary Mann and Andrew Symeou that I am involved in. If we had these measures in place a decade ago, I believe those miscarriages of justice would not be happening.
(MT) Madam President, I agree with those who say that the Common European Market, the single market, is probably the largest project the European Union has ever undertaken. I believe that this project, which favours European citizens, is the next big task for the European Union. It is interesting that the single market began in 1992, the same year in which we adopted the Maastricht Treaty that introduced the concept of European citizenship.
By means of this action plan, we are now creating a space within which European citizenship can be exercised. This can be done in several areas: human rights, civil rights, access to justice and the right of freedom of movement within the European Union. The European Union can also serve as an example in a number of fields, namely, trafficking, combating paedophilia, children's rights, cyber crime, and of course, immigration and asylum matters.
Nonetheless, I believe that this project requires three things: Firstly, a political stamp will give it importance and meaning for our citizens. Secondly, respecting the subsidiarity principle, because there are certain important areas that cannot relinquish the right to employ subsidiarity. Thirdly, deadlines: these must be honoured in this action plan, otherwise it will all come to nothing.
(ES) Madam President, as the Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I was the co-author of the resolution adopted on the Stockholm Programme in November, along with Mr Casini and Mr Berlinguer. I would like to point out that I said at the time that the Stockholm Programme was not going to make Parliament's life easier in the area of freedom, security and justice but, on the contrary, it was going to make it much harder.
I want to say here that some of the requirements in the resolution that was adopted have not been reflected by being clearly set out in the action plan proposed by the Commission. Therefore, as I am aware of the limitations of parliamentary debate and parliamentary intervention in the debate on the action plan, I do wish to point out that paragraphs 148 to 150 of the parliamentary resolution contained some precise indications regarding extremely important issues.
Many of these have been stated, from victim protection to the institutions and agencies related to Schengen, Europol, Eurojust, Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office and its pending new regulations, but there were also some regulations on substantial and fundamental problems, such as data protection and the clause to combat discrimination. The interdependence of data protection and security has certainly been debated in Parliament, in particular, during the debate on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), and the debate highlighted the need for Europe to make its own commitment to an appropriate balance between security and privacy.
What is really important, however, is that the Commission now has five years of work ahead of it to implement each of the links in the action plan for the Stockholm Programme step by step. I therefore call on it to really work very hard with Parliament to take into account all of the commitments relating to paragraphs 148 and 150 of the resolution, keeping in mind that if the Commission does not work diligently and closely with Parliament, it will be vigilant and it will make proposals. It will, of course, also work with the Council, which can adopt initiatives that might deserve to be considered and dealt with by Parliament.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr López Garrido, I, in turn, wish to say how pleased I am to be talking about this action plan, the roadmap, as Mrs Reding called it, for implementing the Stockholm Programme. It deals with a host of fundamental issues, and rather than compile a random list in the very little time I have, I will simply focus on those points that will cause some frustration - one on form and one on substance - to talk about this issue.
In terms of form, as we have said in this debate, we have set ourselves some very precise deadlines for the implementation of the measures, and I would like us to try our best to take concrete action, so that we are not simply paying lip service to ideals.
To that end, in terms of substance, we must address two main points in order to make a success of this implementation. We must define some priorities. On the question of substance, Mrs Reding spoke of added value. I suggest that we press ahead with some points that we consider more urgent than others: firstly, on legal cooperation, so that we are on the same page in legal terms, with, of course, a kind of Erasmus for judges, but why not a kind of Erasmus for all the legal professions and another for the police professions?
Then, the second point in terms of substance, and a key priority, is that of taking every possible measure to ensure the rights of children, to protect them, and to combat cyber crime, child pornography and sexual exploitation.
(EL) The big word missing from immigration programmes is the word 'solidarity'. Today, we voted on the resettlement of asylum seekers from third countries in Europe, but the Commission programme refuses to promote a similar provision for the settlement of asylum seekers from one country of Europe to another or for money. Whatever happened to solidarity?
Over 100 000 illegal immigrants arrive in Greece from Turkey every year. Whatever happened to the Europe-Turkey agreement on the return of these illegal immigrants? It is being side-stepped and is barely even mentioned in our programme. Whatever happened to the agreement being negotiated by Frontex with Turkey today? Can you assure us that it will not directly or indirectly dispute the sovereign rights of Greece, and hence of Europe, on the borders?
Finally, of course, there is the huge obligation of solidarity towards immigrants themselves called 'integration'. Without the integration of immigrants, there is no way that 40 million people who have come to live among us will be able to do so on equal terms. We may be building time bombs. Programmes are needed, money is needed and, at the moment, the Commission does not have them.
(ES) (Start of speech with microphone switched off) I feel that a Europe in which the borders have disappeared and in which there is an increasing amount of supranational crime needs to have more ambition from the point of view of responding to the problem of supranational crime.
I believe that we need to have greater ambition in terms of police coordination, in other words, Europol; judicial coordination, in other words, Eurojust; the European public prosecutor; the technical standardisation of criminal investigations; unifying criminal trial law; and in terms of bringing the respective criminal legal systems closer together.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that there is little ambition and too much national resistance, and I urge you, especially in the Council, to overcome the pro-sovereignty tendency of the Member States, and to unify our criminal justice systems in order to effectively combat insecurity and supranational crime.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the opportunity offered by the Stockholm Programme is definitely an important one: a high number of positive actions that the Commission must implement, carving out a real common space for freedom, justice and security.
Achieving these aims, however, requires a method of cooperation between European institutions, and between these institutions and the Member States, which are an indispensable instrument of true cooperation. Issues such as the regulation of migratory flows according to objective criteria of fairness, the dignity of people in today's overcrowded prisons, the welfare of those who are rehabilitated after drug addiction, the revitalisation of agencies, the opposition to organised crime at cross-border level, make this genuine cooperation truly necessary.
The activities of our Parliament are obviously centred on this challenge, and also provide strong and definite stimulus for the Commission and other Community institutions, as well as for Member States.
Madam President, Dame Sarah Ludford said that she had some concerns about miscarriages of justice in relation to the European Arrest Warrant, in the cases of Andrew Symeou and Gary Mann. That is an understatement if ever there was one! The European Arrest Warrant is a gross miscarriage of justice in itself. Extradition has been reduced to a mere bureaucratic formality. British courts have been stripped of their ability to protect British citizens from unjust arrest and imprisonment when they are extradited to a foreign country. I know because I sat in the appeal court in the case of Andrew Symeou when two Senior Law Lords were unable to prevent the extradition of Mr Symeou, even though it was obvious to everybody in the court that the evidence was either non-existent or fabricated by the police. But of course, that is the whole point, because the court is not allowed to look at the evidence; they have no right. Dame Sarah and the Lib Dems can cry crocodile tears now over cases like Mr Symeou, but they have to bear responsibility for the human misery which they have caused.
(EL) Madam President, it was with real satisfaction that we voted in the Stockholm Programme for provisions which refer to solidarity on immigration issues and in the fight against illegal immigration. I read in the action plan that the Commission will create an instrument in 2011 to evaluate national asylum systems, so that it can provide better assistance to the Member States in terms of each one's capabilities and needs.
At the same time, however, we have given the go-ahead in this Parliament for the European Asylum Support Office to start operating in Malta. The question is this: will the European Asylum Support Office have anything to do with this mechanism and, via this mechanism, with the evaluation carried out? Has provision been made for an internal resettlement programme for refugees in order to even out the pressures between the Member States?
Madam President, I would like to refer to the mechanism to assess corruption in the Member States - the mechanism that is provided for in the action plan. We have a Council decision for the Stockholm Programme, which refers to this matter, and we have the Commission action plan on implementing the Stockholm Programme. They both refer to an evaluation of the anti-corruption efforts in the Member States. Therefore, we need strong political will and commitment from the Member States for such a mechanism to come into place. I say this because we all know that, so far, the domestic efforts have not been effective in all Member States, to say the least.
Secondly, the deadline for the communication in the action plan on the Union's policy and mechanism against corruption is 2011. I would like to suggest having it done before the end of 2010. This would better respond to the need of combating corruption in the Union, as corruption is also seen as a cause of the economic crisis. Therefore, it would be a measure to stop and prevent it.
Madam President, what is really at the heart of this debate on the European area of freedom, security and justice is something that I think was rightly said by Mr Busuttil when he was talking about European citizenship.
What we are talking about here is the composition of that European citizenship, which we need to deepen. This is certainly one of the focuses of the new political phase beginning in Europe with the Treaty of Lisbon, and it has, of course, been one of the focuses for the Spanish Presidency.
There was a very clear and direct question on this to the Council from Mrs Sargentini, on what had been done by the Spanish Presidency during this period and what is in place for the future.
I thank her for this very direct question, and I am going to try to structure my response around some points that all relate to European citizenship and the content of rights, freedoms, securities and justice: in short, the status of European citizens in the 21st century.
With regard to freedoms, we were talking earlier about accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is one of the Spanish Presidency's priorities. I refer to the extensive debate that we had earlier.
I also believe that, in relation to freedoms and rights, we need to talk about the directive on rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. As you know, work is under way on this directive.
We are waiting for the European Commission to make a proposal in general terms on the very specific directive mentioned by Mrs Sargentini: the non-discrimination directive. This is a very ambitious and very important directive. The Presidency of the Council does, of course, support it, and we are awaiting the Commission's initiative.
Issues surrounding victims have been a concern and a priority for the Spanish Presidency, especially victims of gender violence. I would like to say to you that during this period, progress has been made on the directive to combat people trafficking. With regard to the directive to combat sexual abuse, we are working on reaching a common position in June. Work is also being done on a legislative initiative to combat gender violence: the European Protection Order, which is currently being debated in various parliamentary committees: the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. Gender violence is undoubtedly the biggest scourge that exists with the greatest number of victims in European societies. The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) also adopted the European Observatory on Violence against Women and the helpline for victims last month.
Regarding security issues, the internal security strategy was adopted in the March European Council. In relation to this, the constitution has been adopted for the Standing Committee on operational cooperation on internal security. There have been agreements with the United States on security issues, and agreements are in progress: the Toledo Declaration on security and civil aviation; the SWIFT issue, which is very well known to parliament, on which there is a mandate for negotiating a political agreement with the United States as soon as possible. We are also working with the United States on a joint declaration on the fight against terrorism and an agreement on data protection.
With regard to civil cooperation, we hope to agree the Rome III Regulation, a law that applies to marriages.
In relation to the subject of immigration and asylum, which has also been mentioned in many speeches, it should be said that the Spanish Presidency is responsible for the first evaluation of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which it is going to prepare in cooperation with the Commission. At the same time, also in cooperation with the Commission, a returns programme is under way for unaccompanied minors.
Also, in relation to asylum, the Frontex operations are being maintained, and work is being done on a European programme for refugees and on the resettlement of refugees, and also with some countries on repatriation programmes.
In addition to those, there is the European Refugee Fund, which should be ready by 2011: the Tavares report from Parliament provides for it to be adopted by then. So, there are various important initiatives under way in relation to immigration.
I would like to add to this response with a debate that has been taken up very constructively by the Commission - specifically by Commissioner Reding - on the European public prosecutor, which is provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon. I think this is a debate that we need to have. It would be very interesting, not only, as the Treaty of Lisbon says, to protect the economic interests of the Union, which is, of course, a very topical subject. It would also be very interesting at a later stage in order to be able to prosecute transnational crimes. It is also a debate that has been launched by the Spanish Presidency of the European Union.
These are some of the specific elements that are being launched or have been launched during the Spanish Presidency, in cooperation with the Commission and Parliament. We believe that it is absolutely crucial for us to have credibility in terms of building an open, safe Europe that protects its people. This is the spirit in which the Spanish Presidency wants to continue, along with the trio of presidencies that will be operated by our partners: Belgium and Hungary. This is the Spanish Presidency's intention, and we are, of course, counting on the cooperation of the European Parliament, which we have.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, everybody is talking about the Stockholm Programme. That is a Christmas tree with several hundred wishes. I would like everybody to speak about the reality. How were these Christmas tree wishes treated before the Lisbon Treaty? Behind closed doors, without much consideration for the citizens and what they want, wish for and expect; in the third pillar, where ministers of the interior were asking neither the European Parliament nor the Commission, and where the European Court of Justice had no possibility to intervene.
That is where we are starting from: an impossible situation. Where de minimis decisions were not even carried out at national level, where citizens did not have the means or the instruments to go to court, to protest and to seek justice.
Fortunately, we now have the Lisbon Treaty. There is no third pillar any more. There are Commission proposals, codecision, implementation at Member State level, control by the European Court of Justice, but that means also that things cannot be done instantly any more. Rules and proposals have to follow the normal way, under which you parliamentarians have asked the Commission to conduct its work.
First, a thorough analysis of what is feasible, what is good, what has added value. Second, public consultation, in order to know whether the ideas that we put on the table will be accepted or not by civil society, by industry, by the Member States, by the national parliaments, which are now a player in all these questions and which conduct the subsidiarity test. And then, impact assessments, in order to see if what we are doing is the right way. And, only then, we have the definite proposal from the Commission.
If you want the Commission to continue to do as has been done over the last number of years, just tell me, and I will come with a proposal every week. And do you know what will happen with those proposals? They will first be blocked in the national parliaments, and rightly so, because we have to come with serious proposals based on the legal assumptions that what we are doing is strong, is feasible and can be implemented in the Member States.
I do not want the first proposal we make to be challenged before the Court of Justice and before the Court of Human Rights. I would like to lead all of us to the way where the citizens will understand that the added value of what we are doing here is of real benefit to them in practical terms. Yes, as the Commissioner responsible for women's affairs, I have heard this Parliament discussing what we need to do, most of all in order to give legal certainty to women in all our Member States, that when they have a problem of violence, they will get justice and not the illusion that they hope they will get justice and then they get nowhere and end up with nothing. So here we really have to work together.
There are hundreds of measures which have to be 'Lisbonised', which have to be taken out of the hole and brought into the light of day, which have to be adapted to the real rules of law - hundreds of measures that do not work.
The arrest warrant: Ms Ludford was just speaking about this. Of course it is not carried out in the Member States because the construction around the mutual recognition and the mutual trust, which is at the basis of the mutual recognition, has not been built up. Colleagues, you cannot do all this without having mutual trust. I am sorry, I cannot by decree insert mutual trust in the heads of the judges all over Europe!
We have to build this mutual trust with the legislation and with the measures to boost the rights of citizens in all our Member States, so that the judges also implement the rules we have been looking for and, yes, we are advancing very quickly on this.
An action plan, well, the colleague is not there any more, but an action plan for combating the violence against women. In 2011, a comprehensive text about protecting the victims, all kinds of victims - for me there is not a victim here, a victim there and a third category of victims - all kinds of victims have to be considered.
Yes, we have been working on data protection; when fortunately you, Parliament, said no to the way things have been working before Lisbon was implemented. We will not continue like this any more and, yes, Chairman of the committee, you know that your committee and the other committees are fully integrated in the way we are preceding.
We will have many things to do together: very technical questions, which will have a very important impact on our society. We will have to do something; we will have to explain to the citizens what we are doing. Because that is also a part of the whole thing and it is not the easiest part of the whole issue.
Yes, we have to take measures, for instance, on illegal immigration and asylum and, as you have seen, my colleague, Cecilia Malmström, has very concrete proposals on illegal immigration, on border controls, on legal migration. Yes, it would be important if the Parliament could, together with the Council, adopt the existing proposals, the asylum package, the simple permit proposal, the joint resettlement programme, the mutual recognition and the just adopted action plan for unaccompanied minors. There is an awful lot in the pipeline.
It is not about who is going to do what because certain things you simply cannot do. Here is an example: you asked for the Anti-Discrimination Directive. The Anti-Discrimination Directive, I am sorry to say, is a question that has to be solved by unanimity and it is blocked in the Council. So what do you want me to do - not me, because it was before my time - the Commission has put anti-discrimination on the table, unanimity is blocked in the Council? So speak to the Council; speak with those who are blocking it.
Same-sex couples: well you know perfectly well that it is the prerogative of subsidiarity, the competence of Member States to regulate the way they treat same-sex couples. Where the European Union comes in is the cross-border treatment of these same-sex couples. But I cannot do the work for France, for Italy, for Poland, for Romania, for Greece and for Luxembourg; that has to be done by those Member States alone. I can see there is no discrimination if those people, from wherever they come, are exercising their rights to cross-border mobility, and that is what we are going to do.
We have started already to see that, in terms of mobility, in terms of citizens rights, in terms of collaboration between the legal systems, in terms of eliminating the borders that still exist in this single market, which, sorry to say, is not a single market when it comes to citizens. That is why I am very happy; I have read the report by Mario Monti. There are many elements in this report, which say where we have to move. You know what is my bible? The report, which was drawn up by one of your Members, contains all the elements on the free movement of citizens and all the problems that have to be solved.
Now what I propose to you is to take them, one by one, and solve them, one by one, in full cooperation with you. When I put on the table a proposal, and you have seen how it goes, you will have so many proposals that you will have to work at night - I do not know if it is permitted under employment rules and human rights, but I will not care for your human rights as Members of Parliament. We will work until we have solved these problems - there are hundreds of problems to be solved and I cannot do it alone. I need your very constructive help. I know I will get this help but help me to work on one element after the other, even if it has to be one element per week. It is going to be on your table. I am willing to come to your committees as often as you call me, Madam President, and we will discuss this over, element by element. In five years' time, with your help, we will have changed this continent.
The debate is closed.


13. 2009 discharge: European Food Safety Authority (


Adjournment of the session
I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned and wish everyone a pleasant journey home.
(The sitting was closed at 4.25 p.m.)


4. Recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean (vote)
Braghetto report


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes


Dates for next sittings: see Minutes


Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes