8. Nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament (vote)
- Before the vote:
(IT) Mr President, my group made a mistake in not asking in time for two votes to be taken by roll call. If there are no objections, I should like to ask you kindly to authorise us to do so now, even though we have missed the deadline.
In the original text, it would affect paragraph 1, second part of the split vote that is on the voting list, and paragraph 9, again in the original text, where voting on separate parts is provided for: we request a vote by roll call in this case as well, if you agree and will kindly forgive us for the mistake we have made.
(Parliament agreed to the request)
- Before the vote on paragraph 2:
Mr President, we can improve paragraph 2 by adding only a few words.
It concerns our 'call on all States not part of the NPT to accede to that Treaty'. That is regular and routine. However, we could call on them first to 'comply voluntarily with', and then to accede to, the Treaty, thus introducing fresh encouragement.
(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)
That concludes the vote.


PNR Agreement with the United States (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the PNR Agreement with the United States.
Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, as you already know, the United States and the European Union concluded talks on a long-term PNR agreement. I want to use this occasion to thank the German Presidency and in particular Minister Schäuble for his personal involvement in making this happen. The unanimous mandate given by the Council of Ministers has been fulfilled. The new agreement provides for a high level of data protection and important commitments on the handling of future European PNR data.
Several important interests had to be addressed. Firstly, the fight against terrorism and serious international crime, and in parallel the right to privacy and protection of fundamental civil rights, the need for air carriers to be able to comply with diverse legal requirements at an acceptable economic cost, the wider transatlantic relationship and the true international scope of these issues. The United States has agreed on a binding international agreement and by doing so they have understood the need for legal certainty.
The agreement is divided into three parts. First, an agreement signed by both parties. Second, a letter which the United States sent to the EU in which it set out assurances on the way in which it will handle European PNR data in the future. And third, a letter from the EU to the United States acknowledging the receipt of assurances and confirming that on that basis it considers the level of protection afforded by the US Department of Homeland Security to be adequate for European PNR data.
In the past, the exchange of undertakings was not binding in character. It was in my personal view, but also in the view of the Council, a major achievement of the new agreement. This agreement will be valid for 7 years, thus providing for a considerable period of legal certainty. There is not an extension of the time during which passenger data are kept from 3.5 to 15 years. There is an increase from 3.5 to 7 years of the time during which data are kept in an active file. The further period of 8 years that was already provided for in the previous agreements and that undertaking is not newly introduced in this new agreement.
The purpose for which data will be used remains the same. The number of PNR data has been reduced from 34 to 19 as a result of rationalisation and merging. Sensitive data will be filtered and made accessible only in exceptional circumstances which have been justified and will be deleted after 30 days. Those air carriers not already pushing the data will go from a 'pull' to a 'push' system as soon it becomes technically feasible. It is now up to air carriers to introduce new technologies as soon as possible, but both the United States and the EU agree that this system should be a 'push' system and no longer a 'pull' system.
The Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security and the United States Secretary of Homeland Security will be responsible for the review system. Finally, the United States has accepted a review system which was likely to be agreed at the beginning of our negotiations.
Protection given under the United States Privacy Act will be extended through administrative procedures to non-US citizens, in particular with regard to redress and correction, and, therefore, EU citizens will be entitled to protection under that Act. That was not the case under the previous agreement.
Common efforts are needed in order to protect our societies, including our human rights, from attempts by terrorists to undermine them. The recent events in London and Glasgow have shown that terrorism will stay with us for some time. That is why, as I have already announced, I will present a package in the autumn, which will include new measures - both legislative and operational - aimed at improving and increasing our capacity to cooperate at an international level against terrorism. I shall also propose that the EU Member States establish a European PNR system at national level in as many Member States as possible.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PT) Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Frattini and the German Presidency on the effort they have put into concluding this PNR Agreement. It was essential to avoid a legal vacuum that would have left European airlines in a difficult position and jeopardised the protection of our citizens.
We have always supported having an international agreement at EU level instead of 27 bilateral agreements, because the Union can put forward a stronger position not only on preventing and fighting terrorism, but also on protecting fundamental rights. That is why the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats was in favour of granting the Commission a mandate to reopen negotiations. We are well aware that the negotiations were difficult and also that the European side wanted to find a mutually acceptable solution more strongly than the US side did.
I find it regrettable, however, that this agreement is composed of three parts: an agreement and two letters, the binding nature of which is not all the same. There are several points that have changed for the better, and Mr Frattini has mentioned a number of them, but there are others that have fallen well short of our expectations. The points I would highlight are these: first, I welcome the reduction in the number of PNR data, and I welcome the switch from a pull to a push system, as mentioned just now. We know that 13 airlines have implemented the system already, but many others have not yet done so. I would like to know what kind of initiatives the Commission is preparing to help and encourage airlines to switch over.
I still cannot accept what I consider to be an excessively long data storage period. I am pleased at the inclusion of the requirement to give passengers adequate information and I welcome the appeal procedures for passengers, whereby they can review and correct data held by the US authorities, although there is still no sound legal mechanism allowing European citizens to appeal if their personal data are misused.
I am afraid that the additional measures for protecting sensitive data are inadequate, and I regret that the use of data by other US agencies has not been fully guaranteed.
A lot has been done, Commissioner, but there is still a lot left to do, and I hope that the control mechanism that you have agreed upon will allow some of the negative points that remain to be corrected.
Mr Vice-President, I honestly wish I could congratulate you today on achieving an agreement with the USA; my political group knows how hard you have worked, especially in the face of the USA's threat that, in the absence of agreement, they would unilaterally impose even worse terms on the airline companies.
Unfortunately, what we have in our hands, first of all, is not an agreement with the USA. It is in fact an agreement with the USA and with any other countries to which the USA unilaterally decides to transfer personal data on European passengers.
Secondly, it is an agreement that contains commitments only for Europe and not for the USA.
Thirdly, even where the agreement sets certain limits, these limits are so unclear and so full of legal loopholes that in practice it will allow the USA to do pretty much as it likes.
Let me be more specific: firstly, the agreement and the attached letter from the USA state that America will be able to transfer the information we send it to any third country it likes, with hardly any obligation to even notify us. In other words, in practice, Europe is signing the PNR agreement not only with the USA but with any other countries on earth which the USA decides, countries which cannot today receive data on European citizens directly from Europe, because we have not signed an agreement with them. Did your negotiating mandate from the Council really include the authority to allow the uncontrolled transfer of European data by the USA where Europe cannot do so?
Secondly, while Europe has expressly declared that it is bound by the agreement, the USA has expressly declared that they are not bound by the agreement. They are only bound by the unilateral assurances in their letter and by American laws which, if they change, will automatically bring about changes to the agreement.
Thirdly, as far as passenger information on the use of their data is concerned, there is no provision for an obligation by the governments to ensure they are informed; the airline companies are merely urged to do so. But information for citizens is an express dictat of European laws. Why did you not mention this?
Fourthly, if the USA infringes the agreement, the only solution open to the European Union is to abolish it completely. How will this be done, Commissioner, when even if 26 of the 27 Member States consider that it has been infringed and one considers that it has not, the agreement cannot be abolished at European level?
Fifthly, the legal intended uses of the data cited are uncontrolled. While at the beginning of the letter they are limited to combating terrorism and serious crime, immediately afterwards any use is allowed in any criminal proceedings or however otherwise required under US law, that is, for almost anything.
This is not an international agreement; at least not as the citizens understand the term. I do hope it will be changed on these crucial points before it is signed.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all I note that the Council Presidency is absent during this important debate, which is remarkable as it was responsible for the negotiations. I am therefore thankful for the presence of Mr Frattini.
However, I would like to start by objecting to the implicit link that Mr Frattini makes with the failed terrorist attacks in the UK last week. I find that distasteful: it has nothing to do with PNR.
That brings me to an important point that this House has emphasised many times and that is the need for an evaluation. We need evidence that the use of PNR data leads to greater security and that they are not used only to catch people who commit document fraud, drug smuggling or whatever. We need evidence and not just anecdotes.
Mr Frattini says that this is a good agreement. Well, it serves two purposes: firstly, to legalise the transfer of data by carriers and, secondly, to provide, as he has said, a high level of data protection. Well, it fails miserably on the second objective; it is not legally binding, it explicitly states that it does not confer any rights on any person or any party. Well, how much clearer can it get? Then, it looks good superficially, but it is full of loopholes, open definitions and exceptions, when it comes to purpose limitation, for example, or the retention periods, which are going up to 15 years and maybe even more, and they will be applied retroactively. I am not a lawyer, but that strikes me as distinctly funny.
The reduction from 34 to 19 data is an insult to our intelligence. If you look at the data, it is not a reduction: the 34 are merged into 19 data fields. I am not stupid. We may not have any powers here but we are not stupid.
Then with pull to push: we got that promise back in 2004. We still do not have it! It is technically feasible, so why do we not have it?
Democratic oversight is completely lacking. This House may not have competences any more, but the national parliaments are completely excluded. Some of the national parliaments will get to approve the agreement, but they can only say 'yes' or 'yes', because they do not have time, they do not get all the necessary information - only very summary information - and it has just been pointed out that if one national parliament says 'no' then there is no agreement and no parliament will want to take that responsibility, so they have their backs against the wall.
With regard to the Privacy Act, it is good that it now covers European citizens. We asked for that many times. However, we all know that the Bush Administration uses all sorts of exceptions and exemptions to the Privacy Act, which, incidentally, affects American citizens as it does European citizens.
To conclude, concerning Mr Frattini's proposal on a European PNR scheme - which is not a real proposal because he floated it at a press conference rather than putting a real proposal before this House, I think the timing - last week - was wrong and I would like to know what the justification is for such a scheme. We do not even know what purpose the PNR agreement with the United States serves. We do not know how many terrorists were caught, how many attacks were prevented and how many false positives there have been. We have insisted on an evaluation before signing a new agreement.
Finally, I would like to recommend that the PPE-DE Group support the joint motion for a resolution that we will negotiate tomorrow, read the agreement very carefully and read between the lines, because it is not as good as it looks.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Mr President, this is the third agreement we are discussing in this Parliament on the transfer of passenger data to the United States, and things are not getting any better. Commissioner Frattini, you claim that the data is only used for the fight against terrorism or against serious international crime. As you know the agreement well, you will also be aware that Annex II stipulates, as Mr Lambrinidis said, or otherwise required by law, by US-law that is, which opens up its scope considerably, of course.
In general, I think that this is not the place either where you should make things out to be better than they really are. This also applies to the data, as Mrs in 't Veld said a moment ago. I have the two annexes here in front of me: an old annex to the old agreement and a new annex to the new agreement, one of which contains 19 data fields while the other contains 34. I would very much like to hear from you presently what data, according to you, will no longer be transferred to the United States. I want to know this very specifically because, as I see it, there is not one data field that will no longer be transferred to the United States, let alone 15.
Turning to the other item of push and pull, here too, I am tired of people acting as if major progress is being made. On two occasions, the Americans have moved this proposal, and you have had to negotiate once again with a view to them simply delivering on their own promises. Surely this is unacceptable in transatlantic relations.
Finally, I checked the DHS [Department of Homeland Security] website today for redress inquiries. It states that if you think you are under suspicion and that you are on a watch list of people who are denied airline boarding, they cannot let you know what the data is that they have on you, but you will have to inform them of the reason why you think you are under suspicion. Surely this is not the way to let people seek travel redress! So I would have to say to you, yes, I might be a vegetarian, but this will really not tell you anything. It is too absurd for words that people do not have access to the data on which they appear to be judged.
(NL) Mr President, following endless debates, pulling and pushing, I had hoped for an adequate explanation where effectiveness is concerned, or the supposed effectiveness of an agreement such as this one. However, this hope soon evaporated when I read the agreement, one that was announced with so much pomp and circumstance by Mr Schäuble and others, including yourself.
Not a word was breathed about this supposed effectiveness. How many terrorists have been stopped in their tracks on the basis of the existing interim agreement? Of course, like the Commission, I too understand the importance of having an agreement, not least on account of the position of the European aviation industry. Legal certainty is important to everyone, but rules and regulations should not be there for rules and regulations' sake.
What struck me, above all, having read this agreement, is that a great deal is coming out of our own pocket. It remains completely beyond me why we as a Union allow ourselves to be pushed into such an underdog position. Both the Council and Commission could learn from the perseverance displayed by our champion Mrs in 't Veld. All credit therefore to her and her unstinting efforts.
Finally, whilst the fight against terrorism is, of course, an important one, I cannot shake off the impression that we are at risk of losing sight of reality in this matter. This agreement is not enough, not by a long shot.
Mr President, I am afraid that I am going to continue in a slightly sceptical line, but first of all a question to the Commissioner. Could he please tell us what is the legal basis of this agreement from the EU side? The only reference I can find to any legal instruments in it are to US Statutes. I do not find any reference to legal bases from the Treaties. I remember talk of Articles 24 and 38 earlier on. If Article 38 is one of them, then why is the European Parliament not formally consulted?
Secondly, we hear a lot about needing this to fight terrorism. If terrorism is such an important priority of the EU, why have we gone four months without a counter-terrorism coordinator?
Thirdly, this agreement is about collecting a huge amount of data on everyone, as a basis for profiling, data mining etc., but we have very poor implementation of targeted measures against terrorism.
The Director of Interpol has just launched what has been called in the press an 'unprecedented attack on the UK' for failing to check visitors against the Interpol database of stolen passports. When the Commission produced a report last year on the common position of January 2005, it was distinctly unimpressed by Member States' achievements. Only a small number of Member States had established infrastructures for authorities to search the Interpol databases - 8 of the 25 Member States did not respond to the Commission's inquiries - and very few Member States had made sure that their law enforcement authorities searched the database. Member States are completely ignoring their obligations.
Finally, we have the EU APIS Directive of 2004, which should have been implemented last year. Could the Commissioner tell us whether the Member States have implemented this Directive, why it is concerned only with illegal immigration and why it does not provide for visitors to be checked against terrorist watch lists? There are plenty of measures out there which are being completely unimplemented by Member States. Let us do that first before we have mass surveillance of the whole population.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank all those who have spoken, even though I do not agree with most of their speeches, but you know that I always speak my mind with absolute frankness.
Ladies and gentlemen, agreements are made between two parties. The United States has the power to accept or reject an agreement. We had a duty, first of all, to ask the Council of Ministers for a mandate, which we were given and within which we have operated. The agreement has been approved by the Member States - after all, they granted us the power to negotiate - so they clearly thought that having this agreement was immensely better than the possibility of not having any agreement at all after 31 July this year, which is actually in a few days' time.
Quite frankly, I should like to have heard those who criticised this agreement so harshly make at least one comment on the consequences of not having any agreement at all. Can any of you imagine that the airlines would have negotiated bilaterally with the United States and achieved a better level of personal data protection? I do not think anyone can even imagine that that might have happened. The protection of European citizens' personal data would have been in serious jeopardy without the certainty of legally binding rules.
As you know, for the first time we have a binding agreement, unlike the previous one, which involved no binding commitments but just unilateral ones. In this agreement, we have recognised the 'push' principle as a fundamental criterion, as this Parliament has demanded on several occasions. The fact that some airlines have said that they are not yet in a position to switch over from pull to push does not depend on either the United States or Europe, but rather on the fact that some of them have so far been unable to change system on technical grounds. Since others have been able to do so, it must depend on their technical ability and willingness, and we shall help them to make the move.
We have set the 'push' system as a criterion; if, however, an airline says it is technically unable to implement it, other proposals need to be examined. Can we deny that airline landing rights? I am ready to examine any proposals, but we have also set a deadline, which is the end of this year. That seems technically feasible, since IATA (the International Air Transport Association) has told us that it is reasonable to expect all airlines to be technically capable of introducing the new system within six months. It is purely down to technical reasons.
We have established that sensitive data will be destroyed within 30 days, a measure that had not been agreed previously, and we have established that the US Privacy Act will apply to European citizens, something that had been mentioned in many debates here in Parliament as an essential condition: European citizens will be able to complain under the same law as US citizens if the US Department of Homeland Security misuses their data. That is something that did not exist before, and I am giving you actual facts.
Mr Lambrinidis has rightly mentioned third countries. It is true that the data in question can be passed on to third countries but, as you know, it is laid down that there will be the same power of control over the correct use of such data. The fact that they are passed on to a third country does not affect the power of control: the third country will use the data in accordance with the very same rules laid down in this agreement and we shall retain the same power to check whether the data have been used properly or not.
Someone asked about the possibility of terminating the agreement. The possibility does of course exist, in the event of a substantial breach, and you are perfectly well aware of the legal basis adopted. Article 24 of the Treaty is an intergovernmental basis and not, unfortunately, a Community basis, because the European Union Court of Justice has so ruled. An agreement had previously been negotiated on a basis that allowed for your full participation as the European Parliament. Unfortunately, the Court of Justice ruling established that the legal basis was incorrect and, as you know, everything stems from that ruling.
It is a fact, Mr Lambsdorff, that many Member States are not complying with European measures, which instead ought to be fully implemented. You know perfectly well not only that I published the state of the art country by country just a few days ago, but also that I have initiated infringement procedures, and I do not think I need to wait for the outcome of those to adopt useful proposals to combat terrorism.
I do not share the opinion of those who say, 'We should do other things first and then worry about terrorism.' Terrorism is a serious and present threat. I think this agreement could have been better if we had been negotiating it alone but, since agreements are made between two sides, it is a compromise and, in the spirit of compromise, the Council of Ministers approved it unanimously. In my view it was right to do so, and the German Presidency was given due recognition for all the hard work it put into this agreement.
It is a binding agreement which will certainly help to fight terrorism or, better still, to prevent it. No member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs should forget that the US Secretary of Homeland Security came to Parliament and gave you some information and, in some cases, specific facts about terror suspects who were stopped thanks to PNR data. There were just a few cases, but they concern people who were stopped thanks to PNR data and were later involved in bomb attacks elsewhere in the world.
Despite all the impact assessments that we have conducted and may yet conduct, I believe that the agreement in question, which provides legal certainty, is infinitely better than the absence of an agreement. I am sorry that we do not agree on this point, but I have a duty to be sincere.
Mr President, we are lacking an important piece of information. The PPE-DE Group is basing its positive opinion partly on the fact that the amount of data now being sent to the US is reduced from 34 to 19. I have challenged the Commission to say which of the 15 pieces of information are no longer being transferred to the US, because as far as I see it - and the rapporteur Sophia in 't Veld also mentioned this - most of the fields are merged so that the change is mainly cosmetic. I would like to be convinced that the opposite is true. I would like the Commission to list the 15 information fields which are now no longer being transferred to the US.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 12 July 2007.


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


Credit rating agencies (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mr Klinz, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on credit rating agencies: future perspectives.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, credit rating agencies certainly did not cause the global financial crisis, but, in my opinion, they were responsible to a significant extent for its severity. When the so-called structured financial products were developed in America on the basis of the subprime mortgages, the credit rating agencies supported this process by rating dozens, if not hundreds, of products each day in an almost conveyor-belt fashion. In so doing, they also accepted conflicts of interests, in that they supported the issuers with advice and help in designing these products.
They continued to claim that they were only expressing an opinion, although they knew very well that their ratings were, in fact, being used as a seal of approval. My report deals with numerous deficiencies and puts forward proposals in the hope that the Commission will perhaps be able to include some of them in its legislative proposal that it will be tabling in the autumn.
I put forward five proposals. The first is that the reliance on ratings must be reduced. In practice, we have found that the regulatory environment has led to the use of ratings being absolutely essential, by banks, insurance companies, pension funds etc. which invest their money. Basel II made this very clear and, in fact, the credit rating agencies have become regulatory certification bodies.
We need to make it possible once again for market operators, particularly institutional investors, which possess their own expertise to actually take responsibility themselves and not outsource the responsibility for investment decisions. It needs to be made clear that investors should only invest if they actually understand the product and cannot use the excuse that they can, to a certain extent, automatically make a triple A product the goal of their investment strategy.
Secondly, we must ensure that the information on which credit rating agencies base their decisions is made publicly available, that it is understood, and that the models used are also known. That will lead to transparency and will also make it easier for institutional investors seeking to invest to make their own decisions. It will also help to enable unsolicited ratings to be given. In this connection, we should also consider whether the proposal that the United States is considering is a sensible one, namely, that where only one credit rating agency is chosen by issuers, a second, independent body could be encouraged to give a rating and this second body could be allowed to work on the basis of the information that is publicly available.
Thirdly, we need more competition. We have a de facto oligopoly. The three credit rating agencies that exist and operate worldwide control 95% of the global business. They have a so-called monopoly income of 40% return on turnover, and therefore I am proposing that we set up a European credit rating agency. It should be based on a foundation model and the start-up financing should be provided by the finance sector by means of interest-bearing loans. After five years, we will know whether it is working and then this credit rating foundation will also have to pay back the funds that it has received.
However, I am sure that there are also other options. It would also make sense to perhaps allow national and regional credit rating agencies to operate in the form of a European network.
Fourthly, we still have an outstanding matter with regard to the payment model. Currently, we have an issuer-pays model. That is the model that essentially works throughout the world. Thus, the issuer pays, but clearly there is a conflict of interests here that we could reduce if there was no more advising of issuers and if the staff of the supervisory bodies was genuinely independent. Other possible models include a subscriber-pays model. Here, there is obviously the risk of conflicts of interest as well as of this being an invitation to freeloaders. Therefore, this needs consideration. The third option would be a performance-based payment, in other words, an up-front payment and then the final payment only once it is clear how good the rating is.
The last, but important, point is that we must introduce liability. Credit rating agencies must accept responsibility for what they actually do, and therefore I believe that we should make them liable, obviously not for the rating as such, but for failures and negligence in their work.
(RO) Mr President, the credit rating industry has numerous shortcomings, the most important of which are the lack of competition and transparency, as well as the oligopolistic structures. Competition would be enhanced by creating a regulatory environment which will promote market entry. This would carry out an in-depth analysis of the current obstacles. I should emphasis how important it is to monitor the progress of the Basel III system and the process relating to Chapter 4 of the Capital Requirements Directive. There is a need to increase accountability and the powers for monitoring the internal models and imposing preventive measures. All rating agencies must abide by the highest standards relating to the publication of information, transparency and management of conflicts of interest.
At the moment, Romania's rating has a stable outlook. This could improve if the pace of structural reforms and the stability of the financial sector are maintained.
(EL) Mr President, the credit rating agencies lost their credibility a long time ago. Our rapporteur is absolutely right on that point. They upgrade and downgrade almost everything: countries, banks, municipalities, even public corporations, absolutely everything, but their ratings are based, for the most part, on undisclosed, unpublished and, hence, non-transparent information.
The issue of the lack of transparency and, hence, of the credibility of the data used by credit rating agencies raises an important question: is it fair, is it logical, is it morally correct for ratings that affect the economy and upset the lives of millions of our fellow citizens overnight to be non-transparent and possibly unreliable? Obviously it is not.
(SK) Mr President, in the wake of the financial meltdown, the credit rating agencies, which assess financial product safety, were criticised for their unprofessional and self-serving ratings of financial products.
Doubts arose over the fairness and professionalism of their evaluations after the transparency of their operating mechanisms was found to be wanting, and it is therefore time we looked for ways to improve the system for the constant assessment and rating of financial products.
In this light, I consider the report submitted by the rapporteur to be very important, and I think that the processes he has outlined will enable us to modify the apparatus used to assess financial products so that the conclusions that are offered, either by rating agencies or by other mechanisms, will result in more objective ratings of financial products.
(PT) Mr President, experience has clearly shown that credit rating agencies are not credible and that their activities continue to be detrimental to certain countries, whether to their economies or to their sovereign debt. Today, this is particularly affecting countries that have relatively weak economies. That is why the intervention of credit rating agencies, which continue to be extremely harmful despite having lost all of their credibility, must be properly controlled. This control should not be limited to transparency rules, but should go further and exert complete control over the international financial system, while also putting an end to tax havens, properly regulating the financial sector with taxes on the movement of speculative capital, and preventing financial capital from continuing to ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(EL) Mr President, I absolutely agree with the rapporteur on all five points of his proposals on so-called rating agencies and the exaggerated impact which they have on the global economy and on the European economy. These firms cannot, at the same time, engage in commercial activities which are similar or relate to their supervisory or rating role.
We are calling for controls on reports by these agencies, for certain basic principles to be adopted, and for liability for compensation to be introduced for losses caused to states which were poorly evaluated or misleadingly evaluated. I also propose that basic accounting principles be introduced and applied in all the Member States of the European Union, so as to highlight the value, the official valuation of the property of these states, so that we have assets and liabilities and these states cannot be left prey to the whims of rating agencies and the parties they represent.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, Commissioner Barnier is currently in the United States meeting with his counterparts and he has asked me to convey to you the following statement in reply to Wolf Klinz's own-initiative report on rating agencies, which was adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in March.
The Commissioner agrees that shortcomings in the working methods of credit rating agencies are widely recognised today as having contributed to the financial crisis. In order to address these concerns, and in accordance with G20 commitments, the EU reacted very quickly by adopting - already in 2009 - a regulation on credit rating agencies. This introduces strict requirements with which agencies must comply in order to eliminate potential conflicts of interest and to improve the quality of rating and methodologies as well as the transparency of the ratings.
As a second step, following the establishment of the three new European financial supervisory agencies, the regulation of credit rating agencies will be strengthened by the introduction of centralised supervision by the European Supervisory Markets Authority. The amending regulation became effective on 1 June 2011. We will pay very close attention to the correct application of this legislation.
Nowadays, the European regulatory framework is a model for other jurisdictions. However, the developments in the European markets following the sovereign debt crisis in spring 2010 make it clear that further review and strengthening is required. For this reason, the Commission undertook in June 2010 to analyse the topics in depth. A public consultation was carried out, the Commission services have evaluated the responses and are working on an impact assessment with a view to issuing legislative proposals in the course of this year. In this context, the Commission will examine measures to reduce excessive dependence on external ratings, improve transparency, promote competition, introduce the principle of liability and reduce the risk of potential conflicts of interest due to the issuer-pays payment model.
We know that these are very complex issues and we want to be sure that we address them correctly. In this context, we have looked with great interest at Mr Klinz's own-initiative report which covers the topics we are currently reviewing and makes a very big contribution to our legislative initiative.
Last but not least, at a global level, in October 2010, the Financial Stability Board issued a number of principles aimed at reducing the dependency of financial institutions on credit ratings. In accordance with these principles we intend to introduce measures against excessive dependence on ratings in our forthcoming legislative proposal for the banking sector, the so-called CRD4.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Prior to the Lehman Brothers investment bank going bankrupt, it was given the highest rating by the main credit rating agencies. They also thought that Iceland's three biggest commercial banks were sound a few days before they collapsed. In addition, the downgrading of Greece's rating has not taken into account the launch of its economic recovery programme. The economic and financial crisis has highlighted credit rating agencies' oligopolistic structure, as well as their lack of competition, transparency and accountability. In a world dominated by three such institutions, greater diversity is needed, along with a new way of working. I therefore support the notion of creating a public European credit rating agency as an alternative to the private institutions of this kind. It would become compulsory to obtain a rating from the European agency, which would supplement the ratings offered by the traditional agencies, thereby boosting competition for the fairest rating.


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes


Cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs Hirsch, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on European cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy.
Mr President, Commissioner, tomorrow, we will vote on the role of vocational education and training in the Europe 2020 strategy. In this connection, it is worth taking a brief look at the position we are starting from. We currently have a level of youth unemployment of 21%, in other words, almost double the normal average. We have an EU-wide school drop-out rate of over 14%. The participation of women in gainful employment is still very low. Many people with disabilities, as well as migrants, are without jobs.
The goal of the Europe 2020 strategy is precisely to tap this potential in terms of workers and to bring them into the workplace so that the EU, too, can deal with globalisation. Thus, it is also our job to ensure that initial vocational education in particular is of high quality. The discussion began in connection with the Copenhagen process, followed by the Bruges Communiqué, and now it is up to us to see to what extent this area can also be incorporated into the Europe 2020 strategy.
An absolutely key element is the fact that young people must have the opportunity, not only in their studies, but also in their vocational training, to undertake part of their training in another EU Member State. It is a key element because someone who has already worked in another Member State will also take the opportunity later on to regard the European labour market as his or her labour market, with all the opportunities that that offers. It is therefore an absolutely key aspect that we must pursue.
The second major area is, of course, that of further training. On account of demographic change, people are having to work for longer and longer - or they can work for longer, but everyone has to take that decision for themselves. People are living until they are much older and will continue with their careers for much longer, and in order to be able to carry on in skilled work until they are older, they will also need to undertake further training.
There is currently a very low level of participation in further training initiatives. Here, too, it must be ensured that the willingness of both employers and workers exists and increases when it comes to taking advantage of further training and continuing to gain education by means of lifelong learning. For this, of course, the options on offer also need to be flexible. We must take everyone into consideration. Further training must fit in with other elements of people's lives and it must be possible to do it alongside work and family life. For that reason, we clearly need to create flexible opportunities in future.
The area of universities has received a great deal of attention - in connection with the Bologna Process, for example - and a similar situation faces us in the area of vocational training, including with regard to mobility. We could almost say that no one has noticed this. Nevertheless, alongside the universities, the area of vocational education and training is particularly important and we therefore must not ignore it. For that reason, I would like at this point to thank my fellow Members from the other groups once again for their very committed cooperation.
(EL) Mr President, as shadow rapporteur, I welcome the Hirsch report, because it highlights how important it is to always have the capacity to learn and work, alongside mobility and flexibility, in the modern and demanding international labour environment. It is true that the economic crisis has brought unemployment and insecurity to everyone, especially young people, women and the disabled.
In order to achieve the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, we need constant and proper vocational education and training both in the European Union and in the Member States. We need targeted policies and strategies to reduce the percentage of early school leavers, proper programming of people's needs for training, and closer ties between the education provided and the needs of the labour market.
I am certain that the European Qualifications Framework, the European system of academic units for vocational education and training, transparency and cooperation and comparability of the various education systems will support the needs ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(RO) Mr President, investment in education is vital to ensure a better future for Europeans. At the moment, the EU youth unemployment rate has reached 20%, while the average EU school dropout rate is 16%, and in some countries, like Portugal, it has reached 40%.
Lifelong learning is vital if unemployment is to be prevented. We must give due consideration to the different career paths. Workers must be made more greatly aware of the need for ongoing further training.
We feel that vocational education and training should be accessible, available and affordable at every stage of life, regardless of people's status on the labour market and their income. Vocational education and training should create the conditions conducive to labour mobility, both during initial studies and as part of the lifelong learning process.
We call on Member States to simplify the procedures for recognising qualifications.
(RO) Mr President, one of the biggest challenges Europe is faced with is the youth unemployment rate. At European level, the focus is placed on reducing the school dropout rate below 10% and on actions such as 'New skills for new jobs', whose aim is to bring the world of education and training closer to the labour market. The distinction between education and training, apart from their context in the workplace, will become even less clear in the future. In order to achieve a greater level of integration, a vital change will need to be made in the way education and training provision is conceived, not only from an individual perspective, but also at institutional level and every level of administration.
Therefore, I think that system-related obstacles and those in terms of attitude preventing integration need to be removed if Europeans are to learn to make progress in the areas of their skills and values and make an effective contribution to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives.
(DA) Mr President, firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, who has tabled an extremely good report. Like everyone else, I believe that we should remember the context in which this report is set, and that, of course, is the youth crisis that we are experiencing in Europe. We are agreed about the general crisis - soaring youth unemployment and young people who are, in fact, moving out of Europe to find work, and this, in my opinion, will be a very serious threat to our economy and our cohesion in Europe in the coming years.
The second context for this report is the common 2020 objectives that we have set for training, employment and the reduction of the drop-out rate. This is about Europe's competitiveness. It is about having a trained workforce, which is something that we know we need. It is also important to ensure that the new generation has the opportunity for jobs and training. This is absolutely crucial. It may be the case that the EU does not have a great deal of competence in this area, but something can be done nevertheless. In any case, it is a shared concern, and therefore we must ensure that we provide high-quality training and that there is guidance available. We must reduce the drop-out rate and ensure that there is a strong link between training and work, for example, by means of exchange systems like we have in Germany and Denmark. We must also ensure that all young people have the right to undergo training.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Hirsch, for her very constructive approach. I have listened to her with great interest because that was actually my dossier 12 years ago. I started to bring about the mobility in training which was not on the agenda at that moment, and I am very glad to hear how strongly Parliament is in favour of developing this essential element in the Europe 2020 strategy. I would also like to say how much we welcome the report, which reinforces and complements the Commission's communication of June 2010.
This communication was an input to the latest review of the Copenhagen Process, and the Bruges Communiqué has now, of course, become the European agenda par excellence for vocational training for the years 2011-2020. Many of Parliament's suggestions correspond with the actions proposed in the Bruges Communiqué. The Commission shares Parliament's view because we need to modernise vocational education and training in Europe to make it attractive, to have qualified teachers and trainers, innovative learning methods and high-quality infrastructure and facilities, and, of course, we have to have the mobility. We have to give the will to young people - and to less young people - to go outside their Member State in order to get the experience which is important if we want to have a real European education and training area.
The Commission also aims to attain gender balance and to help disadvantaged groups through the lifelong learning programme, notably through the Leonardo da Vinci programme, which is included. So all the help which the Commission can get from Parliament is most welcome.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June 2011, at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
During the current economic and financial crisis where the unemployment rate, especially among young people, has exceeded the 20% mark at EU level and even 30% in some Member States, improving vocational education and training must become a priority for the European Union. In this context, youth mobility within the EU, combined with greater flexibility in terms of the labour market and the education and training on offer, are essential elements which ought to be developed at EU and national level.
Ongoing, well-structured dialogue between universities, research centres and businesses can enable a real link to be established between employers' requirements and the skills acquired during education and training cycles. Furthermore, increasing mobility at European Union level through expanding programmes such as Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci or Youth on the Move can also help improve the EU's ability to respond better to the demand of the European labour market and to have greater potential for development in this area. Particular attention must also be focused on socially disadvantaged groups, who need to have fair access to vocational education and training.
The transition from education to work is a structural challenge for employees all over the European Union. Unfortunately, early unemployment has lasting negative effects. For this reason, Member States should ensure that vocational education and training is better adjusted to the needs of the labour market, and that vocational education provides employees with the skills needed to take up new, sustainable jobs that will be created in the future sustainable economy. I consider the role of local governments, entrepreneurial partnerships and educational institutions important in the development of the labour market demands of vocational education and training. The opportunity for mobility is an important part of vocational education and training, but more emphasis should be placed on a better harmonisation of Member States' different education systems - including mutual recognition of certificates and diplomas - in order to enhance collaboration and support mobility. High-quality vocational education and training fundamentally contribute to sustainable development. Better training opportunities must be created for trainers, particularly at regional and local level, with a view to securing the effectiveness of vocational education and training systems, as well as efficient and successful transfer of knowledge. The possibility to learn in an international context is a prerequisite for a successful working life that will promote the acquisition of foreign-language skills and increased competitiveness.
Cooperation at European level in the field of vocational education is also absolutely crucial for the functioning of the single European Internal Market. High-quality vocational education and training must both respond to the demands of the labour market and create the conditions for workforce mobility. Highly qualified and well-educated people represent a competitive advantage for the EU, and support for vocational education should take this into account. We need to focus on establishing close links with the world of work, and also on facilitating high-quality work experience as part of vocational training, both at home and abroad, within the framework of European mobility programmes. We need greater coordination at European level between the education systems in the individual Member States, and, following on from this, cooperation on the mutual recognition of vocational qualifications. The report covers these issues, and, as shadow rapporteur for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I am happy with its final form.
I welcome the report on European cooperation in vocational education and training. It points to an incredibly important issue which has not often been discussed to date, namely, the need for national authorities to take action, in cooperation with the European Commission, to prevent unemployment by tailoring vocational training to the needs of the job market. Unfortunately, vocational education has been neglected in recent years and has reduced in significance. This is why it is so important to promote it as an effective tool in the fight against unemployment, and particularly against unemployment among the young inhabitants of the European Union, which has reached 21%. Apprenticeships, the establishment of advisory services making it easier for workers to plan their training according to the needs of the jobs market and the promotion of lifelong vocational education should be priorities. That is why I call on the Commission to carry out constant monitoring of the outlook for possible changes in the EU jobs market, so that Member States can continuously adapt their vocational training programmes to the needs of the market.
I welcome the report on European cooperation in vocational education and training and would like to emphasise how important it is to promote lifelong learning through initiatives and Europe-wide programmes in order to make it possible for workers to have a better future. These days, workers are at the mercy of frequent and risky employment transitions. There are many types of transition: from training, redundancy, internships or precarious employment into full-time employment. The report contains some important points, including increasing the quota of women in work, recognition of informal learning and promotion of languages with the goal of providing mobility programmes. I am particularly pleased that the focus has been placed on education and training for young people, which is something that I will actively support in the flagship initiatives that follow.
The transition from educational institution to working life must be as smooth as possible and, in particular, tailored to individual needs, because it must also be possible for young people with inadequate training to gain the skills necessary to be able to work in skilled jobs and to earn a good living. Social background must not determine a person's educational opportunities. Young people must be given help and support in securing entry to the world of work. However, the cost of a modern labour market policy must not be borne by our workers.
New skills and competences acquired by graduates of various types of educational institutions have strategic significance for economic growth and open up new possibilities for people, creating a basis for sustainable development. That is why we cannot underestimate the problem of unemployment, especially among young people. They are the ones who most often do not obtain permanent work and are forced to accept temporary work which has an inferior level of social insurance and lacks prospects for development. One of the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy is to reduce the rate of early school leavers to a maximum of 10%, and to enable 40% of young Europeans to complete tertiary education. The legislative process should focus on facilitating the implementation of vocational traineeships and work experience for young workers, especially in micro-enterprises and small enterprises which find it difficult to fund this type of initiative. Strong emphasis should also be placed on eliminating differences in men and women's pay by 2020, since this currently stands at about 18%. I believe that the two most important initiatives in the supranational jobs market are the qualifications framework drawn up within the context of the Copenhagen process and the unified European credit transfer system for vocational education and training. It is also worth mentioning informal training, which represents an underestimated additional source of skills, and which shapes the character and sense of responsibility of the individual, which is why it should be funded by the EU. In order to accomplish these many important goals, cooperation between Member States is vital, as is the involvement of all entities, including those at local and regional level.


Measures to be taken to free Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo (debate)
The next item is the statements on measures to be taken to free Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo.
Madam President, honourable Members - if I have understood correctly this time - it is on behalf of Lady Ashton, our High Representative, that I have the honour of taking the floor before you.
The European Union continues to monitor on a daily basis, through its delegation in Beijing and its bilateral embassies, the situation with respect to Mr Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Prize winner, his wife Liu Xia, as well as their friends and lawyers. Their situation is receiving our constant attention. The house arrest that Mrs Liu Xia and many human rights activists in China have been under since 8 October worries us as much as it disappoints us, and we condemn it.
As you know, the European Union has not waited for Mr Liu Xiaobo to receive this prestigious award to remind the Chinese Government of its international commitments regarding respect for freedom of expression. In this particular case, the European Union has always considered that Charter 08 was a peaceful manifesto, calling for more respect for human rights in China. What is more, the Union has published four public declarations since December 2008, calling for Liu Xiaobo to be released.
Our position could not be any different when the Nobel Committee announced on 8 October, entirely independently need I point out, its decision. We have congratulated Liu Xiaobo via the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs, Lady Ashton, and via the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and we have stressed how important his release is to us. We regret that the Chinese authorities have not heeded the calls that the international community has been eager to amplify.
It is regrettable that the European Union should take note, once again and with concern, of the intimidation and house arrest that Mr Liu Xiaobo's wife, Mrs Liu Xia, has been subjected to for the last six weeks. We deplore just as vigorously the threats, surveillance and ban on leaving the country, as well as the arrests that many of Liu Xiaobo's relatives and friends have been subjected to since he was awarded the Nobel Prize.
Madam President, the European Union will continue with consistency and determination the efforts that it has undertaken for nearly two years now to see Liu Xiaobo freed so that he can exercise his rights in full and take part, as he would like to, in the public debate that he initiated in China with Charter 08. We carry on hoping that he will be able to collect the Nobel Peace Prize in person on 10 December. We call on China to remove the restrictions on freedom of movement and of expression to which his wife Liu Xia and many of his friends are subjected.
Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, the Commission fully supports the Belgian Presidency's statement. The European Union has repeatedly maintained that it considers Charter 08 to be a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and, as the Presidency has just noted, the European Union has reiterated several times the serious concerns it has about Liu Xiaobo's arrest, trial and imprisonment.
Both President Barroso and the Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative, Cathy Ashton, have welcomed the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo on 8 October. However, the Commission regrets the fact that the Chinese authorities have reacted by putting his wife, Mrs Liu Xia, under house arrest, and by restricting freedom of movement for many of his friends.
The Commission reiterates its call on China to release Liu Xiaobo immediately from prison and to lift his wife's house arrest order, as well as to remove all restrictions on his friends' freedom of movement. The Commission, as mentioned by the Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative, Cathy Ashton, in her statement, hopes that Liu Xiaobo will be able to collect the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize in person, in Oslo.
Madam President, ten months ago in this House, I was saying that the 11-year prison sentence given to Liu Xiaobo by the Chinese Government simply for expressing his views was symptomatic of the Chinese authorities stepping up their campaign against human rights activists.
At this very moment, I believe that awarding the Nobel Prize to Liu Xiaobo is an appropriate act to emphasise that, although China has made great progress in economic and sometimes in social matters, the real sign of progress is respect for human rights. A country can be admired for its economic achievements. However, it will not gain the respect of other countries if it restricts freedom instead of protecting it.
Indeed, I find the actions taken by the Chinese Government in an attempt to intimidate the countries invited to attend the ceremony extremely worrying. It is just as worrying that some countries have given in to this blackmail.
We are dealing with an unacceptable situation because a country is taking a stance in its international relations against one of its own citizens. In fact, China would gain, as I was saying, the respect of the other countries if it allowed Liu Xiaobo now to go to Oslo to receive his prize instead of making these threats against other countries.
However, the Chinese authorities' attitude seems, for the time being, to be much more hard line than that of the Soviets because not even a member of Liu Xiaobo's family or his lawyer is able to get to Oslo. This is why I welcome the initiative proposed by Lech Wałęsa to represent the Chinese dissident symbolically in Oslo. However, I hope that the Chinese authorities will decide at the last moment to release Liu Xiaobo.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, tonight, we in the Socialist and Democrat Group give our full support to this European Parliament demand that Liu Xiaobo is allowed to go to Oslo, and does not earn a different prize as the first laureate or laureate's representative in its one hundred year history to be unable to be present to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Arrested for taking part in demonstrations, banned from teaching, sent for re-education and now imprisoned for seeking to exercise freedom of expression, the Chinese called Liu Xiaobo a criminal whilst the rest of the world awards him the accolade for peace.
I went to China personally on behalf of this House and saw that there are people ready to enter into dialogue with us on issues of labour rights and corporate social responsibility. But the fact remains that, when this Parliament's Human Rights Subcommittee sought visas from China, no reply was ever given; and when the EU pressed for a meeting of our human rights dialogue with China, the Chinese deliberately offered a date between Christmas this year and the New Year. It now looks almost certain that there will not be a meeting under this Presidency.
This is not serious. All who wish to express solidarity tonight with Liu, his wife Liu Xia and all prisoners of conscience in China, should recognise that the rest of the world has too often put trade interests with China before our mutual obligations on human rights. This is exemplified by British Prime Minister David Cameron, who this month took a 48-strong trade delegation to Beijing but failed to include anyone to represent an interest or expertise in poverty reduction, environmental degradation or labour rights.
The truth is that five socially conscious individuals who make up the awards committee in Norway have arguably done more than this European Union, the US or the rest of the international community to put pressure on the Chinese Government to reform. Let us remember that Andrei Sakharov, Lech Wałęsa and Nelson Mandela were all Nobel laureates who once lived in repressive countries which were ultimately transformed, and tonight express our hope that Liu Xiaobo may join this list not simply in the China of today but in a China where human rights are fully respected one day in the future.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, this debate in a sense catalyses several years of effort by many Members who are present here, and others, to try and focus attention on the real China. The sense of unity being displayed by Council and Commission, and by the diplomatic representatives in Oslo, concerning the ceremony which may take place on 10 December, is encouraging. Of course we hope that Liu Xiaobo will be present, but it is unlikely.
What we have seen in the last few weeks, in diplomatic terms, is a car crash organised by Beijing. It is one of the most disastrous, cack-handed episodes in the history of diplomacy. But at the heart of this lies the clash between the free world and what remains a dictatorship.
On my last visit to Beijing, all the people with whom I had contact were subsequently arrested, imprisoned and, in some cases, tortured. There are between seven and eight million people imprisoned across China, there are at least 5 000 executions a year. I have seen a list of more than 3 400 people who, in the last 10 years, have died under torture in that regime for their religious convictions.
In sum, this is a terror state. We want to congratulate the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for its courage in making this award. I hope that in Oslo, on 10 December, should the ceremony take place, we have the most muscular presence on behalf of the European Union, standing by its foreign policy priorities of human rights and democracy. The world's most populous country deserves what we enjoy in Europe.
Madam President, Liu Xiaobo has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and we are very pleased about this because it is a demonstration of the universality of human rights, which lies at the heart of our political self-understanding. We were also happy to see that our pleasure was shared by many countries throughout the world and also by many people in China.
The Chinese Government has responded harshly to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. It has reacted excessively harshly, both internally and externally. I believe that this is regrettable. It does not seem to me to be a good idea to acknowledge this negative response, if I can express it like this, by caricaturing China's current position. With all due respect, I must make it clear, although I agree with the previous speaker about supporting the call for the release of Liu Xiaobo, that I think it is not only wrong, but also harmful to describe the China of today as a terrorist state. In my opinion, this is not true, nor does it help the positive relationship which it is important for us to have with China.
China will have to accept that we support universal human rights, because we will continue to do so. However, we must not confuse this with a strategy of confrontation. No one would benefit from this, least of all the supporters of human rights within China.
I have already said and, in summing up, I will say again that China has reacted excessively harshly to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is attempting to exert diplomatic pressure on other countries not to attend the ceremony in Oslo. That is simply unacceptable. Parliament will not accept this and, therefore, I am pleased that the President has already agreed that the European Parliament will be represented in Oslo.
Madam President, I come from a country which, only 20 years ago, was ruled by a Communist dictatorship. I had the misfortune to live in that system and I know what the situation is like in such a country. Indeed, I remember how important the voice of what, at the time, we called 'the free world' was for us then. I mean the voice coming from here - from Western Europe and the United States. I remember how, at the time, it created the feeling that what we were doing there - fighting for liberty and democracy - made sense.
I think that, today, we are under an obligation to help people such as Liu Xiaobo. Besides, he consciously makes reference to the experience of democracy and of those who fought for democracy in Central Europe. The name Charter 08 is, after all, a conscious reference to Charter 77. I think that all of us here may differ in our economic or political views, but on questions of human rights we should be completely united. I hope that in this House we will be just that.
Madam President, following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, Liu Xiaobo is now the only Nobel laureate who is incarcerated, in prison. From the speeches that we have already heard from the Council and here in Parliament, all of us here hope that he will be able to receive this Nobel Prize in freedom, or that he will be freed as soon as possible. That would honour the person that he is: committed to the peaceful transformation of China; a literary critic, teacher and author, who has always sought to bring freedom of expression and democracy to China through the world of ideas and words. The document Charter 08, for which Liu Xiaobo was imprisoned, is, as Mr Chastel has already reminded us, a constructive and peaceful one, which caused Liu Xiaobo to be incarcerated.
We know what we have to do now: work towards the release of Liu Xiaobo and all China's political prisoners. We must also work towards the release of Liu Xia, Liu Xiaobo's wife, who is under house arrest, and bring an end to the siege of their family, friends and lawyers. For this to be achieved, China will have to ask itself why, for example, it responded to the recent release of Aung San Suu Kyi by calling her an important political figure, even though it does not recognise that many people across the world believe that Liu Xiaobo, too, is an important political figure. However, above all, China needs to realise what a sad, awful figure it cut with its bitter worldwide diplomatic offensive to prevent the world's high diplomatic representatives being present in Oslo for the Nobel Prize ceremony. Clearly, the people who run China can want to live in a fantasy world, and we understand why it is that they want to live in a fantasy world, where there is no opposition. What they cannot do is want to force us to live according to the rules of that fantasy world. That, I believe, is fundamentally our main issue. It is very easy for us in this Chamber to bring our indignation before the Chinese authorities and put all our complaints to them, but I think that first, we should look at the European authorities and start with our own governments. When my country, Portugal, was receiving a visit from high Chinese dignitaries recently, the government steered a demonstration by Amnesty International away from the place that the entourage was going to pass through to somewhere a few hundred metres away; the same thing happened in France, where a demonstration was moved to the Eiffel Tower. Moreover, as we have already seen, David Cameron recently travelled to China, very interested in doing business with the country, but forgetting to make a single forceful reference to human rights.
We know that there are double standards here in Europe. We say a few passing words about Liu Xiaobo, but our governments are interested in doing business. We must therefore start the housecleaning here.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, it is hard for us to imagine the sheer physical and moral courage required by Mr Liu to stand up against the murderous tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party. Those of us who enjoy the most basic freedoms of free speech and free assembly and democratic politics have a duty to speak out on behalf of Mr Liu and those like him. Mr Liu wants nothing more for China than those basic freedoms and civil rights that we take for granted.
The values that he espouses are the best hope for freedom, peace and democracy for China and the world and it is fitting that he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his efforts and his sacrifices. He wants nothing more than democratic reforms and the end of one-party Communist rule in China. It should surprise no one that the Chinese Communist Party prevents him or his family representative from collecting the award.
The Chinese Communist Party is a party of murderous gangsters that has no more purpose than the continuation of its own existence. China is a big and powerful country and it is inevitable that our governments must maintain political, diplomatic and trading relations with them. The Chinese Communist Party warns foreign governments not to attend the ceremony. Our governments should send representatives and show their and our support for Mr Liu and the Chinese democracy movement as a whole. I represent many Chinese exiles in London and I am pleased to offer what small support I can by speaking out on behalf of Mr Liu and their democratic aspirations.
(PL) Madam President, it is very good indeed that Parliament and the Commission have decided that the situation of Liu Xiaobo should be discussed at a plenary sitting of the European Parliament. It is a pity there are so few of us here for such a debate. After all, the international community, of which we are one of the most important members, should be united in such situations and should support the fight for respect for human rights together, because solidarity is the key word in this debate.
In 1989, when my country finally defeated the communist dictatorship, Liu Xiaobo was protesting in Tiananmen Square, demanding exactly the democratic freedoms which were shortly to be enjoyed by almost the whole of Europe. He has not given up his efforts - despite having spent years in prison, he signed an appeal for democratisation of the country, for which he was sentenced to a further 11 years' imprisonment. Just like Liu, our leader, Lech Wałęsa, strove for a bloodless transition and for freedom. We enjoyed the support of democratic countries. Wałęsa, too, was not able to receive his Nobel Peace Prize in person, but even so, that prize was the hope of liberty to us Poles. That Nobel Prize became a catalyst of change.
Today is a good time to draw the attention of world opinion to people just such as Liu Xiaobo. We must not forget that apart from such leading figures as himself, there are many others who are not being spoken about, for example, the human rights activist, Mao Hengfeng, who is currently in a re-education/labour camp precisely for protesting against the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo. The European Union should attach the highest importance to human rights in contacts with China. This should be a priority for meetings such as the European Union-China summit which was held on 6 October. I want to express my disappointment at the omission of this fundamental matter. We must show we are not blind to human rights, and an opportunity to do this will be the award ceremony for the Nobel Prize in Oslo, at which, I hope, the whole world and all ambassadors will be present.
(PT) Madam President, the Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo has been a consistent and courageous human rights defender since the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Parliament therefore joins Baroness Ashton and the Commission in demanding that he be freed immediately so he can go to Oslo in December to receive the Nobel Prize, and demands freedom of movement for his wife, family and friends, who have been especially restricted since the announcement of the Nobel Prize on 8 October.
The Chinese authorities' threats and intimidating manoeuvres to prevent the ceremony in Oslo are a disgrace. No government that succumbed to this despicable blackmail would be worthy of respect. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and, according to the UN Charter, it has special responsibilities to respect and promote respect for human rights domestically and abroad. China has already done much for some of the economic, social and cultural rights of millions of Chinese, whom it has dragged out of poverty and penury, but it cannot stop there. It must respect and promote respect for the civil and political rights of its citizens: if it does not, its own development will eventually be hindered.
Liu Xiaobo is not a criminal: he is a brave and committed citizen who brings prestige across the world to China and the Chinese people, and of whom the Chinese people should only be proud. Beijing must free Liu Xiaobo, his wife and his friends; it must free the Sakharov laureate, Hu Jia, and all the other brave Chinese citizens who dare to fight for democracy, for freedom and for their most basic rights. If they are not freed, it is China that will lose prestige. It is the Chinese regime that has shown itself incapable of turning its country into a respectable and influential power on the international stage.
We will not stop clamouring for the release of Liu Xiaobo and of all those who are struggling for freedom in China.
Madam President, awarding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo is testimony to the personal cost of human rights advocacy in China today. It is imperative that he and all other human rights defenders in China be released immediately. There are other cases pending. I remain painfully aware of the situation of Dhondup Wangchen, the Tibetan film maker, who suffers from hepatitis B and is in need of urgent medical attention in prison.
The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo must be considered as strong support for the struggle for freedom of expression in China. It also serves, however, as a reminder to the international community of the need for reform in China. Even Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, has warned that China may lose what it has already achieved through economic restructuring if there is no consequent political restructuring - and, colleagues, he was censured by the Chinese media.
Delaying such reform has a terrible human cost. In addition, pressuring countries to stay away from the Peace Prize ceremony shows that China has not yet matured into an international actor. China is a superpower and it should start acting like one responsibly. I am very humbled to say that I have been invited to the ceremony as one of the 50 persons who are going to represent Liu Xiaobo at that ceremony.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Alfred Nobel, founder of the peace prize, wrote in his will that human rights are a pre-requisite for brotherhood between nations and that a prize of this magnitude should be awarded to someone who had struggled and made sacrifices in the name of freedom, democracy and human rights.
Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese dissident who won the Nobel Peace Prize, has been a great defender of the application of these values during his lifetime. During the course of his long and non-violent battle, he has always stressed how all these rights are constantly violated in China by violent repressive methods. He has had first-hand experience of being sentenced to forced imprisonment without the chance of a fair trial or of communicating with the outside world.
For this very reason, we must do all we can as European institutions to secure his freedom. Rights first and then economic and trade relations, otherwise we Europeans must consider ourselves beaten as well.
(DE) Madam President, the relationship between the European Union and China is not always a simple one. Above all, this is due to the fact that we have a different understanding of the importance of human rights, freedom and free speech. The European Union has taken the responsibility for promoting these values throughout the world and, therefore, for supporting human rights defenders in other states, such as Liu Xiaobo in China, so that they can bring about changes in the situation in their own countries. For this reason, I believe that it is very important that Parliament, but also the Council and the Commission, clearly commit to attending the award ceremony for the Nobel Peace Prize. Heidi Hautala will be taking part as an individual, but I hope very much that the European governments, the Council, the Belgian Presidency and the Commission will be represented at the highest level. This is the only way that we can make it clear that our arguments are rational and that our call for respect for human rights throughout the world is a credible one.
Madam President, honourable Members, by way of conclusion to this important debate and to answer the questions that a number of Members have, I would like to say two things.
Firstly, the European Union will, of course, be present as a whole, as it has been every year, with at least the same presence as last year - like all the Union's diplomatic delegations - at the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr Liu Xiaobo in Oslo on 10 December. That was the first thing I wanted to share with you today.
Secondly, the European Union has been holding a regular dialogue on the issue of human rights with China for 15 years, and although there is always more one could do in this respect, we attach great importance to this task, which seems to us more pertinent than ever at a time when people are speaking out in China and are calling for the scope of human rights to be broadened. Inspired by mutual respect and a deep understanding of the Chinese political context, we will continue to raise the universal issues of human rights, in particular, the case of Mr Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Prize winner, with the Chinese authorities.
The debate is closed.


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 09:05)


Closure of sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.45 p.m.)


Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes


12. Situations of fragility (vote)
- Motion for a resolution:


2. Revision of the Treaties - Transitional measures concerning the composition of the European Parliament (