2. EC/Georgia, Lebanon, Maldives, Moldova, Singapore and Uruguay Agreements: Protocols amending the Agreements on certain aspects of air services following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (vote)
- Report: Paolo Costa


Antibiotic resistance (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on antibiotic resistance, by Paolo De Castro, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development - B7-0304/2011).
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we have an important chance to tackle the growing problem of antibiotic resistance in animals responsibly and with commitment. This is a strategic issue for the agriculture sector and, in particular, for the future of the European animal husbandry system.
The data show that around 50% of the antibiotics in Europe are prescribed for animal use. If used properly, antibiotics are a useful tool that helps farmers keep their livestock healthy and productive and safeguard its welfare. Therefore, we are not here to demonise antibiotic use in animal husbandry, but we want to ask the Commission to provide a concrete response for the more efficient and effective use of antibiotics, in order to reduce resistance in animals.
In our resolution of 5 May 2010 on the EU Action Plan for Animal Welfare, this House underlined the link between animal welfare, animal health and public health, and urged the Commission and the Member States to address the difficult problem of antibiotic resistance in animals in a responsible manner. In particular, we called on the Commission to collect and analyse data on the use of all animal health products, including antibiotics, with a view to ensuring the effective use of such products. A year later, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which I have the honour to chair, is here to ask the Commission to implement all relevant initiatives to resolve this long-standing problem, which can also have consequences for human health.
What is needed, Madam President and Commissioner, is a tangible commitment from the Commission that it will use the data collected to put the results obtained into practice, not only encouraging research and monitoring activities, but also ensuring more effective use of antibiotics as an important tool for fighting animal diseases.
On that front, I would point out that some studies show that low-energy animal feed could lead to a higher incidence of diseases and, hence, more antibiotic use. It would therefore be desirable to review the ban on the use of animal meal for non-ruminants, in line with the opinion of the European Scientific Veterinary Committee. These are the requests made in the resolution adopted in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 12 April this year and which will be put to the vote in this Chamber tomorrow.
It has been hard work for the last few months, and for that reason I would like to personally thank Mrs Paulsen, the shadow rapporteurs and all the parliamentary groups for their invaluable contributions to establishing a common text on this issue. The future competitiveness of European animal husbandry may depend on how this problem is managed, and its cross-cutting nature calls for commitment and responsibility, through a coordinated approach and a shared political will.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, first, I would like to emphasise that the Commission is fully aware of, and correspondingly concerned by, the threat to public health posed by antimicrobial resistance (AMR).
In reply to the first question, in 2009, the Commission asked the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to take a lead in collecting comparable data on the use of antimicrobials in animals. The project, the European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC), started in the third quarter of 2009. The EMA has worked together with the Member States, EU agencies and relevant stakeholders to develop the system. Findings from the data available from 10 Member States will be published as soon as possible. Twelve additional Member States are voluntarily starting to collect these data. The aim is to broaden the system to cover all EU Member States. A further aim is to have data on a more detailed level - at animal species level, for example.
Why do we need these data? We need them in order to adopt a science-based approach: only on the basis of this type of data can scientists properly assess the true risk of AMR attributed to the use of antimicrobials in animals.
Turning to the second question, I can assure the honourable Members that the Commission is aware that the control of AMR requires a multi-disciplinary approach. Therefore, the Commission consults its own services, Member States' relevant agencies and other stakeholders on an ongoing basis, for example, through meetings and public consultations. The Commission is working on AMR in close collaboration with its relevant agencies, in particular, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the European Food Safety Authority, the EMA and the European Union Reference Laboratory for AMR.
In reply to the third and last question, I would like to announce that the Commission is developing a five-year strategy on AMR. This strategy will adopt a holistic approach and will contain concrete proposals for further action to address the issue of AMR in relation to public and animal health. The strategy will be based on the Council conclusions and recommendations on AMR and on the outcome of the consultations I have already mentioned.
Work on the revision of EU rules on veterinary medicinal products and medicated feeding stuffs is ongoing. New tools and instruments to tackle AMR are being considered, for example, as options in the impact assessment.
Based on the evidence gathered, the Commission will decide the details of its legal proposal. Our objective is to present this Commission strategy on 18 November 2011, which will be European Antibiotic Awareness Day.
Madam President, Mr Andor, firstly, I would like to thank the chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr De Castro, for his initiative and for the question to the Commission on this important issue. Mr Andor, after listening to your speech, I would first of all like to ask you to move from theory to practice, because we need to take concrete action.
Antibiotic resistance is a subject which we must take seriously and which, hitherto, has had too little attention paid to it in the context of animal husbandry. Antimicrobial agents are undoubtedly very useful when properly used. They help farmers to keep their animals healthy and productive and also ensure high levels of animal welfare. In order to make sure that antibiotics remain effective in combating disease in animals and in humans, we must take a coordinated approach at an EU level.
In recent weeks, we have held intensive discussions on this subject in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and we have considered it in detail. The joint resolution was adopted by the committee on 12 April with a large majority: 34 votes in favour and 2 against. The excellent cooperation with all the shadow rapporteurs from the different groups has resulted in a very balanced and well thought-out text, which we must adhere to, and I would ask you to do so, during the vote in plenary tomorrow. The report is balanced because it focuses on animal welfare, the problems of antibiotic resistance and cost-effectiveness as far as the farms are concerned.
Therefore, I would once again like to thank everyone involved in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and also Mrs Paulsen for the fruitful cooperation. I would now like to see the Commission take action.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the consequences of using antibiotics to treat animal diseases are well known and increasingly worrying. It is an area that is already subject to fairly demanding standards, to which the European Parliament has also been dedicating attention, and on which many positive initiatives are being realised, such as the network for collecting data on antibiotic resistance. However, these initiatives are still not enough.
I therefore call on the Commission not just to improve the monitoring mechanisms, but also to adopt the measures necessary for wider-ranging data collection, and for the series of incentives encouraging best practices in this area to be included in the common agricultural policy legislative package that is being drawn up.
The text of the resolution tabled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, whose most important recommendations received broad support, as my colleague, Mrs Jeggle, has just confirmed, deserves detailed analysis by the Commission. Above all, the recommendations need to be translated into concrete measures to better defend public health and the image of the quality of European products of animal origin.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we have done a fantastic job in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. It is rare for a politically mixed gathering to be as much in agreement as we were this time.
Antibiotic resistance is, in fact, the biggest threat to both animal and human health that we face. At one time, infectious diseases were the most common cause of death in children, young people and young animals. In this regard, do not forget that both animals and people are mammals. We have the same immune defences and we have the same sensitivity to stress, which means that if we do not feel well, our immune defences are impaired and we need antibiotics because we will be more susceptible to serious infections.
We considered this with regard to human medicine. We took measures, we tried to tighten up our use of antibiotics and to understand what could happen. Do not forget that if we lose antibiotics as a weapon, we will be back to the time of our great grandmothers when what we currently think of as trivial infectious diseases, such as a small child's ear inflammation, could once again become fatal diseases. This is not something that is particularly easy to deal with in this respect and we should be taking it seriously. As I said, I am extremely pleased.
There are, of course, some details of this resolution that I would have liked to have more of or that I would have liked to be different, but the main thing is not that all of the commas are in place; what is important is our collective will to start the process. That is what I hope the Commission will take on board, because I believe that we will get an almost unanimous 'yes' tomorrow. I hope so, and I hope that this will be a strong signal that makes you sit up and listen. Thank you.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, I would like to thank the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for bringing this issue up.
I share his concerns at the level of antibiotic resistance being found in bacterial infections of livestock. I agree with him that there should be growing concern that there is evidence of overspill to the human population, where we are finding that the efficacy of many once-reliable antibiotics has declined significantly, thereby putting human health at risk. So I support the intent of the debate. I also agree that the important first step must be to work closely with the various agencies and the pharmaceutical industry in order to monitor and assess the problem.
I want to state, however, that, contrary to popular opinion, this is not exclusively a problem brought about by intensive agriculture. The random use of antibiotics in agriculture is - or has been - common to all farming, be it large or small. Indeed, I would go further and say that large-scale producers today are usually vertically integrated under contractual terms with the processing sector, and that the prophylactic use of antibiotics is usually prohibited or restricted under quality assurance schemes.
However, it is clear that there must be some measure of control, and I look forward to hearing details of the Commissioner's strategy in due course. There are three points that I want to make. Firstly, any measures taken must be based on sound scientific evidence; secondly, they must be proportionate; and, thirdly, they should not place a further burden of regulation, and thereby cost, on the agricultural and veterinary industries.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very serious issue. It is of great importance not only for animal husbandry in future, but also primarily for human health. We must not forget this. This is ultimately not a problem for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. However, as has once again become clear, we do not have enough data. Only 10 Member States have provided information and that is too few. We need to deal with this subject rather more quickly and we need accurate controls.
We are paying too little attention to one factor in this context and that is intensive farming, both in large-scale buildings and in certain regions. We need to look at this and we can do something to prevent it. By restructuring our agricultural policy, we can make sure that the focus is on good animal welfare, that animals live in conditions suitable for their species, and that the animals are strong and robust, on the principle that prevention is better than cure.
What we also need, and this is a job for the Commission, is a long-term plan to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture. The main impact of antibiotic resistance is on workers in the agriculture industry, in other words, farmers and their employees. These people already have huge problems in this area. Another cause for concern is the suspicion that antibiotic resistance is being transferred directly via foodstuffs. We need to look carefully at this in the interests of the health of the European population. There is an urgent need for action here.
It is important to make it clear that 50% of all antibiotics are used in animal husbandry, which is far too much. Therefore, we must ensure that this figure is reduced in the long-term interests of agriculture and of public health.
(RO) Madam President, World Health Day, celebrated on 7 April, had as its theme this year antibiotic resistance, regarded as a global threat to public health. Every year, 25 000 people die across Europe from causes associated with antimicrobial resistance. Animals and food of animal origin could play a role in the development of antimicrobial resistance in people. This is why the resolution being debated today is an important document.
The most important word in any discussion on this subject is 'caution'. It is not antibiotics which are bad, but their uncalculated and immoderate use is dangerous. Antibiotics must not be demonised, but used with caution in both people and animals. The measures proposed by this resolution on providing more information to vets and farmers must therefore be implemented as vigorously as possible. With regard to imposing a ban on the use of antibiotics as additives in animal feed, this must be subject without fail to international agreement.
A recent study highlights that in the United States, almost half of the samples of meat tested in stores contained Staphylococcus aureus, half of which were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics. This demonstrates the widespread use of antibiotics in animal husbandry, and I must say that European farmers have had enough of being the only ones to adopt and comply with the rules at the risk of a drop in their incomes.
(DE) Madam President, Mr Andor, ladies and gentlemen, we must do everything we can to counteract the spread of antibiotic resistance. We are in complete agreement on this. This involves the responsible use of antibiotics in human medicine and in animal husbandry. The European Union must take determined action. We must not allow 25 000 people to go on dying from infections caused by resistant bacteria every year in the European Union alone. Antibiotics must not be used routinely or preventively. We must ensure that antibiotics are used responsibly in all the Member States.
It is of the utmost importance that every possible effort is made to keep livestock healthy from the rearing stage onwards, until they are fully grown. Ensuring that animals are healthy is the best means of avoiding infection and the use of antibiotics. The way the animals are fed is decisive in this respect, but the husbandry is also important.
We should also be open to the use of alternative methods, such as homeopathy and phytotherapy, in livestock husbandry. We need more research and more information in Europe about these alternative approaches.
(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my home country, the Netherlands, is champion of the world. Not at football, alas - we just missed out on that last year - but in the use of antibiotics in cattle breeding. No other country in the world uses as many antibiotics in cattle breeding as the Netherlands. There are very serious consequences to this, and they are not limited to this usage in the Netherlands; 25 000 people die as a result of bacterial infections in Europe every year, as other Members have said. They reach people via meat. 90% of the chicken meat in the Netherlands contains resistant ESBL bacteria, and last month, it even came to light that resistant bacteria had been found in vegetables after being passed on via manure and the soil. Madam President, this really has to change. A country like Denmark has shown that things can change and that, with sound, strict measures, you can maintain a strong and healthy cattle-breeding sector whilst using far fewer antibiotics.
The Commission has stated previously, and again this evening, that it will put forward more far-reaching measures in November. They will then be fleshed out in 2012. I want to urge the Commission to really give this a high priority and not allow it to depend on the Member States, which are too slow to put the right measures in place.
Madam President, it is very clear that there is cross-party agreement on concern around antibiotic resistance. However, given what the Commission has just said - that we have data from 10 Member States and that it is not yet available to us - we really are talking about concerns about which we do not have detailed facts. We need that information.
I would like to see a league table of Member States' usage of drugs per head of animal population, so that we can actually look at countries which adopt best practice and benchmark them against others that are not. I do not mean to point the finger, but rather to allow those Member States who might be overusing antibiotics to improve their animal husbandry practices.
It is also right to say that farmers do not use antibiotics willy-nilly; they use them when animals are sick. Antibiotics are costly and therefore, farmers do not just use them as they would give an animal a drink of water.
We need to be a bit balanced in this debate. Let us get the information. We look forward to the strategy in November to help us avoid this growing problem for the European Union and its animal and human population.
(DE) Madam President, I am very grateful to the author of the question, the chair of our committee, for putting this subject on the agenda. The use of antibiotics in animals involves closely linked advantages and disadvantages. The medicines which help animals to remain healthy can, if used improperly, represent a major risk for people. Therefore, we need to take a coordinated, integrated and, above all, scientific approach, because we will have to continue using antibiotics to treat animals in future. At the same time, we must also reduce the risks for people.
This report meets precisely these requirements. I hope that the Commission will take up Parliament's suggestions, wishes and demands. Most importantly, as many previous speakers have said, we need an analysis of the current situation by all the Member States in the interest of animals, of European agriculture and, in particular, of the citizens of the European Union.
(SK) Madam President, I would like to point out one fact which links veterinary medicine to human medicine. All other European congresses of microbiologists, when they spoke of resistance to antibiotics in humans, spoke of the so-called methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. This is a scourge for which those of us in human medicine no longer have an effective antibiotic: we do not know how to cure it. Up to 25 000 people die from it every year.
Do you know how it came into being? Simply through the irresponsible use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine. Tonnes of antibiotics are literally stuffed into animals. In the case of animals that are dosed preventively, it is added to their food, and it thus also weakens man and his ability to combat the infections he gets, despite being in hospital, through hospital strains.
I would like to urge the Commission to speed up the gathering of research from all Member States, but also to support new research into antibiotics that would be effective for humans and would save lives.
(SK) Madam President, the penetration of the food chain by products from the chemical and pharmaceutical industry is an inevitable consequence of the intensification of agricultural output. The human organism thus becomes the natural victim of the efforts of food producers to produce as much food as possible, as cheaply and as efficiently as possible.
We must therefore start to monitor the use of modern chemicals and pharmaceuticals in agriculture very closely and, in the interests of protecting the health of our citizens, also assess very purposefully, systematically and permanently the consequences of using these substances. Only the high quality permanent monitoring of food products will enable us to recognise early on the risks or threats which new technologies pose to the current population.
We may be talking today more about antibiotics and the growing resistance to them, but we must take note of the issue and assess it more comprehensively. I also hope that the Commission will regard concern for food safety as a coherent strategy.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission strategy on antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which we plan to present in November, will provide further ideas on how the Commission, together with the Member States and stakeholders, could tackle AMR in all sectors involved. Some of these actions may require changes in legislation. Others may not. The key is to select the right tools for the task in hand.
I fully agree with you that this is not only, or chiefly, an animal farming issue. This is why our aim is to reduce the development of antimicrobial resistance attributed to the use of antimicrobials in animals.
There are various tools here: education, awareness-raising campaigns and so on. By the same token, we believe that data has to be collected to promote better understanding of the problem. The Member States do actually show interest in providing data, which is encouraging.
And yes, we do have a timetable for action. Preparatory work is ongoing, including impact assessment, the revision of rules on veterinary medical products and so on. Legislative proposals, as I already mentioned, will follow in 2012.
The Commission very much welcomes the valuable input of Parliament and looks forward to continued collaboration with Parliament, Member States and stakeholders from all sectors, with the common aim of protecting the health of citizens throughout the European Union.
To conclude the debate, I have received one motion for a resolution.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 12 May, at noon.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Antibiotic resistance in livestock and domestic animals has become a problem in recent years. In order to tackle this growing problem, I call for increased research and better controls on its effects in the food chain. If used correctly, antibiotics are an effective tool, but I call on the Commission to introduce concrete measures to make their use more efficient so as to reduce animals' resistance to antibiotics, as this is a problem that impacts on the entire food chain. It particularly affects levels of antibiotic resistance and so has human health repercussions. To achieve this, the budget for the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) must include the funds required to increase field work and to effectively monitor this problem. Finally, given the importance of this problem, I call on the Commission to draw up a plan for tackling it at EU level that takes into account the full extent of this problem of combating antibiotic resistance, above all, the link between animal health and antibiotic use, and the link between animal and human health.
We are absorbing antibiotics in our food, which is resulting in increased resistance. This is one area of medical progress which is gradually being ruined and we have known about this for a long time. Mr De Castro referred to the measures that have already been taken. I support the proposals made in the resolution. There are two aspects of this which I would like to focus on.
Regulations alone are not enough. In the dioxin scandal, we have seen how easily they can be undermined, if individual 'black sheep' behave in a very negligent way. Of course, we must have regulations and we need to introduce monitoring systems, but that is not the entire solution.
In the medium and long term, the solution is to make the use of antibiotics largely superfluous. We can achieve this firstly by investing in research and networking expert knowledge, secondly, by passing this knowledge on to farmers and vets and thirdly, by providing information to consumers.
We must make clever use of market forces, because it is consumers who decide in the long term how their food is produced.
According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, there are 400 000 patients in Europe infected with multi-resistant strains of bacteria. I therefore welcome the resolution of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, in which I support, above all, the demand for the proper collection and analysis of comparable data on the sale of preparations for veterinary use, and the subsequent use of these preparations on animals. The collection of this data should be mandatory for all EU Member States. If the EU adopts strict measures on the use of antibiotics with agricultural animals, we can also expect changes to legislation in third countries, particularly because of the financial losses that would be caused by a restriction on meat exports to Europe. For example, 74% of all antibiotics used in the US are applied in animal husbandry, for preventing diseases or boosting the growth of healthy animals. Half of all meat products inspected in shops in the US contain dangerous bacteria (MRSA). This problem has been known in the US since 2008, and there has been no fundamental solution to date. Non-pathogenic multi-resistant strains of bacteria also represent a risk in view of the possibility of transgenic transfers and, according to the latest research, shared resistance. The emergence of new, multi-resistant strains of bacteria may deprive future generations of the possibility of making effective use of antibiotics. A scenario such as this could have catastrophic consequences for human health. Resistance to antibiotics represents an enormously serious problem which must be resolved immediately and effectively.


Decision on urgent procedure
Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards the date of introduction of electronic identification for ovine and caprine animals - C6-0448/2007 -
(DE) Mr President, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development discussed this yesterday evening and voted in favour of urgent procedure. I therefore commend its decision to the House.
(Parliament agreed to urgent procedure)


9. European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (
Before the final vote:
rapporteur. - Madam President, for the same reasons as my colleagues and fellow rapporteurs have asked for a postponement, I too ask for a postponement on this report to give us the time that we really need to have a thorough discussion with the Council on whatever they come back to us with.
I believe this can be a successful deal. I think this will help us today to have the strong position we need, even though we have converged from different directions, in order to be able to discuss that deal with Commission and Council.


EU-Libya Framework Agreement
The next item is the report by Ana Gomes, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the negotiations concerning the EU-Libya Framework Agreement.
Mr President, Libya has a strategic position with regard to controlling migratory flows to Europe, in addition to significant energy resources and great potential as a neighbour and partner in the Maghreb.
Some Member States have close relations with Libya, but it is important to ensure that such relations are duly anchored in the fundamental values and interests of the Union. Therefore, we support the development of relations with Libya through the establishment of a framework agreement covering various areas of cooperation with a view to stimulating a substantial political dialogue.
We cannot forget, however, that Libya is governed by a dictatorial regime with a history of serious breaches of human rights and terrorist attacks and interference in other countries, though, in the last few years, there have been signs that it wants to do a U-turn. Consequently, the framework agreement with Libya can only have the consent of this Parliament if certain conditions are met. A sine qua non condition is that Libya allows the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to operate in the country again with an extended mandate. Let me say it quite clearly: no UNHCR, no agreement.
Libya must be persuaded to ratify the Geneva Convention on Refugees. As it is already a party to the African Refugee Convention, it is difficult to understand why its internal legal order does not recognise refugee status.
Any re-admission agreement between the European Union and Libya has to exclude all those who claim to be asylum seekers, refugees or persons requiring international protection, and it must be applied completely in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement. Critical situations, such as occurred with the 400 Eritreans who were on the verge of being expelled en masse from Libya last summer, must not happen again.
The European Union must encourage Libya to adopt legal and social solutions that improve the inhuman living conditions of the approximately 2 million immigrants - about a quarter of the population - who are working in Libya. These immigrants deserve legal protection and cannot continue to be treated as abeed, slaves. The European Union has to invest in joint programmes to combat the growing traffic in people, which has devastating consequences, particularly for women and children. The European Union's support for the International Organisation for Migration and all the organisations that help migrants in transit in Libya must be increased to improve the conditions of migrants interned in detention centres, which are starting to fill up again, in spite of suddenly being emptied in the middle of last year.
The Union cannot abstain from persuading Libya to commit itself to a moratorium on the death penalty and it is essential that it demands that the Libyan authorities publish the identity of national and foreign citizens who are executed. The Union must insist that Libya ratifies the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Within the framework of cooperation, the Union must encourage reforms that modernise social, political and judicial structures, which open the country to the outside, which expose society to free information, which promote independence of the media and which invest in the institutional capacity building of corporate and labour organisations and other organisations that are representative of civil society. The Bouazizi revolution in Tunisia will certainly have repercussions in neighbouring Libya, and even the Gaddafi regime can understand that.
We have to strengthen the support given to the health sector in Libya through the Action Plan for Benghazi by extending it to other medical centres and other public health requirements. We understand that the negotiations between the European Commission and Libya are at an advanced stage, though some difficulties have emerged with regard to trade and energy cooperation.
From our point of view, it would be advantageous to set up an EU office in Tripoli soon to facilitate the negotiations and monitor the development of the situation in Libya.
Commissioner, in these recommendations, we ask the Commission for detailed information on the budget lines used and planned in the cooperation with Libya. I hope that you will be able to let us have this information soon.
Finally, I wish to point out that only recently did Parliament have the opportunity to consent to the Council's mandate for the negotiations. That is unacceptable and cannot continue. Finally, I would like to express my thanks for the cooperation of all the shadow rapporteurs, who were essential for the broad consensus that has been achieved on potentially such a divisive topic.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to brief this House regarding the negotiations on the European Union-Libya Framework Agreement.
The Commission and the European Parliament are already working closely on the Libyan issue. We have a joint interest in ensuring the positive development of our relations with Libya, which is an important neighbour. In this context, I would particularly like to congratulate your Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries for the agreement reached during the visit to Tripoli, which indeed provides for regular consultation with the Libyan Parliament.
I am determined to ensure that the close cooperation between our institutions continues. In particular, I am keen to inform the European Parliament regularly about the latest developments regarding negotiations on the Framework Agreement. I know that our chief negotiator debriefs you after each negotiation session.
Let me give you some information on the latest state of play. We completed the ninth round of negotiations in mid-November in Tripoli. The next one is scheduled for 24-26 January in Brussels. Since the launch of negotiations more than two years ago, we have made good progress. In fact, we have provisionally agreed the preamble and six out of ten titles of the Agreement. In particular, we have reached a provisional agreement on the title on political dialogue, which contains important references to respect for human rights, the fight against weapons of mass destruction, the fight against terrorism, etc. Libya has agreed to establish a regular dialogue on human rights and fundamental freedoms, which was a key objective for us. In fact, we are very satisfied with the outcome achieved in this title.
As you might be aware, there are some outstanding issues, namely, the questions of energy and trade. Energy represents the core of Libya's economy - indeed, 70% of Libya's GDP. Therefore, the attention and caution Libya devotes to this issue is understandable. As for trade, Libya has limited experience negotiating complex trade agreements. This is why progress has been moderate in this field. Experts from both sides meet very regularly to ensure that we can reach agreement on these two issues as soon as possible but, of course, there are difficult political issues.
One of them is the question of the Rome Statute. Libya categorically refuses to make an explicit reference to the Rome Statute. However, it is ready to make a commitment on cooperation with the European Union on the fight against impunity, in particular, on those crimes defined in the Rome Statute.
On migration there are also difficulties, notably because Libya refuses to readmit third-country nationals. I have taken note of the recommendation made by this House regarding this particular aspect of the negotiation and I will certainly discuss this with Member States.
Also on migration, I can reassure this House that we are committed to ensuring that Libya respects its international commitments regarding the principle of non-refoulement. This is an important point for the European Union. We also consider that it is important that Libya should adhere as soon as possible to the 1951 Geneva Convention and its 1967 Protocol on the status of refugees. However, it should be noted that Libya has indicated that it does not intend to adhere to this Convention.
I would also like to stress that we are following closely negotiation between Libya and the UNHCR in the hope that a satisfactory solution will be found to ensure that the UNHCR is able to discharge its mandate fully and in a legally secure environment.
More generally, in October, we reached an agreement with a view to developing cooperation with Libya on all migration-related issues, including the issues of international protection, improving the conditions of migrants in Libya, management of migration and border control. This is a positive development because we need to work jointly with Libya to tackle all the challenges that it faces in relation to migration.
Finally, let me conclude on the issue of the negotiating directives, which this House has repeatedly requested access to. I am fully aware of the obligations created by Article 218 of the Lisbon Treaty. As you know, negotiating directives are a classified document of the Council. This is why the Council had to study your request in a horizontal manner. I am glad to tell you that this debate has been concluded and, as you are probably aware, the Council has granted access to the negotiating directives of the European Union-Libya Framework Agreement in respect of the agreed procedures and of the Council's security regulations. The Council has informed the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs accordingly.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, the June 2009 Council recommended prioritising the conclusion of readmission agreements with Libya and Turkey, considered as major gates for illegal immigration into Europe.
The Libyan gate mainly affects Malta and Italy. Massive illegal immigration in Malta risks altering its demographic composition. Although shared responsibility is recognised by all, little is done in practice to correct this development. The number of arrivals in Malta decreased only when Italy, equally affected, reached a bilateral agreement with Libya, in which Libya assumed responsibility for patrolling its shores and harbours.
What is needed is an EU-Libya readmission agreement in the context of a framework agreement. Negotiations are difficult, but we support the Commission's efforts and we encourage it to continue until it succeeds.
We commend the migration and cooperation agreement concluded between the Commission and Libya last October. It is essential to prepare Libya with regard to issues such as the protection system for asylum seekers, the management of land borders, the alignment of legislation with the African convention on refugees and the management of migratory flows.
We know about the human rights situation, the dependent judiciary, the conditions of detention, torture and capital punishment in Libya. However, the readmission agreement is necessary. This excludes people who are entitled to asylum, need political protection, or risk mistreatment in Libya, while the principle of non-refoulement applies to everybody.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the work done by Mrs Gomes in my view makes a serious contribution to what the Commission should do in defining the framework agreement.
Libya undoubtedly plays a decisive role in the fight against terrorism, in peace and security in Africa, in the fight against illegal immigration in the Mediterranean, and in the energy sector. Our aim in the context of the European Union's strategy must therefore be to consolidate Libya's integration into an international political and economic system based on shared rules.
To achieve that, a number of conditions need to be imposed on Libya, and that is what the recommendation is calling for. First of all, in the matter of immigration, Libya is clearly a transit country. This is an extremely important subject, but it cannot be seen simply in terms of security, stopping immigration and refoulement.
The subject involves the need for a government ruled by the streams of economic and social policies equal to the challenge of migration, the issues of the recognition of political refugees and the ratification by Libya of the Geneva Convention and, lastly, the problem of the readmission of immigrants based on concrete guarantees to safeguard the immigrants' living conditions.
Then there is the question of launching economic and democratic reforms to make decidedly more room for democracy in this important country. We shall have to take this issue into ever greater account, as the events in neighbouring Tunisia are showing.
Lastly, this recommendation calls for reflection on the issue of bilateral agreements. Such agreements can certainly make a valid contribution to defining and solving problems, but they are not the final answer. For example, the problem we have with Italian fishing boats shows that the bilateral agreement option does not address these problems. Now, however, the review of the partnership and neighbourhood policies also involves the call to rethink the Libya question in a new framework, which means including Parliament.
Many of us have called for the Council's mandate for the framework agreement to be made known. In this respect, Commissioner, there is a real need to break step and involve the European Parliament more and more in defining new policies for the countries to the south of Europe.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all, I would to thank the rapporteur for her outstanding work in trying to consolidate the positions of all the groups of the European Parliament.
Regarding this report, I would like to highlight the importance of addressing the situation of immigrants in Libya trying to cross the Mediterranean. I can fully understand the concerns of the southern Member States relating to the flow of illegal immigrants and the pressure it puts on their budgets as well as on society in general.
However, while keeping in mind the interests of Member States, we cannot set aside European values. The EU cannot afford to have the blood of any asylum-seeker or refugee on its hands. No agreement of the EU and its Member States with Libya should lead to the inhuman treatment, torture or execution of anyone. Therefore, it was encouraging to hear from the Commissioner that he sees progress in EU-Libya relations and negotiations.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, we witnessed in Tunisia the rising of the people against an oppressive and abusive regime which has denied them basic human rights for years. It is a big source of shame for the EU that for many years, we have been supportive of this dictatorship. To make things even worse, the EU risks committing the same mistakes in Tunisia's neighbouring country, Libya.
If the Commission and the Council do not change course, it will continue to prop up yet another dictator in the region in the name of stability and border control and migration. For years, the Gaddafi regime, one of Ben Ali's best friends as we have seen recently again, has been systematically violating the human rights of its citizens and especially of migrant workers. Nevertheless, the EU and several of its Member States have increasingly close relations with Libya, and the EU is now even negotiating this framework agreement.
I therefore urge the Council and Commission to notice the writing on the wall and ensure the following conditions are fully satisfied before we can conclude any agreement with Libya:
First of all, Libya needs to ratify and implement the UN refugee convention and grant the UNCHR full access to the country; secondly, it needs to guarantee adequate protection and rights for migrants and adopt asylum legislation including the principle of non-refoulement; thirdly, no readmission agreement with Libya can be concluded until the high risk of inhuman and degrading treatment faced by migrants in Libya has ceased to exist.
And, on that matter, because I do not think this will come too soon, I really wish the Commission to fail in the negotiations on the readmission agreement.
Furthermore, Parliament needs to be fully informed at all stages of the negotiation process.
The Greens strongly object to any dirty deal with a dictator like Gaddafi on the back of migrants and Libyan citizens. Continued EU support for this oppressive regime is neither in line with the EU's values and legal commitments, nor does it serve its long-term interests in the region. As we have so vividly seen now in Tunisia, only a democratic and free country will be truly stable and prosperous.
Let us make sure the EU does not commit the same mistake twice.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, Libya is a country where human rights are routinely abused and democracy is non-existent. Colonel Gaddafi has never stood for election since coming to power 41 years ago. Indeed, political parties are banned.
Gaddafi is the Fidel Castro of Africa. He tries to portray himself as a benevolent father of his own people, even claiming that he has no formal role in the state hierarchy. We in my country, the UK, know him differently as a previous sponsor of terrorism, in particular, the Lockerbie bombing of 1988.
To polish up his international image he has, to his credit I suppose, compensated grieving families, but in truth, the maverick Gaddafi would be totally ostracised by the West were it not for Libya's prodigious reserves of oil and gas. This gives Gaddafi leverage over the EU and, in particular, he has sought to divide the Council by courting the leadership of certain Member States.
Nevertheless, on pragmatic grounds, I accept the need for cordial trading and diplomatic relations between the EU and Libya under a framework agreement. But I do fear that all we are really doing is consolidating Gaddafi's power, which, in due course, inevitably will pass to one of his sons in a dynastic succession akin to that of North Korea.
Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur for her work and Mr Füle for being here today. We consider that in what is, from every point of view, a sensitive region, constant efforts should be made in the Mediterranean to develop understanding and cooperation, cooperation on an equal footing that takes account of the asymmetries and inequalities that exist in the various sectors of development between countries in the Mediterranean and between the European Union and its neighbouring countries in the region, cooperation that targets lasting peace. This can be achieved through dialogue on the basis of mutual respect and, as such, we must be open to reciprocal influence. Within this framework, we are in favour of strengthening relations between the European Union and Libya.
However, there are certain sensitive issues which require particular attention in the process of developing these relations. I shall comment mainly on the issue of refugees, immigrants and the readmission agreement. The aim is to achieve a readmission agreement with Libya, as part of the framework agreement being discussed between the European Union and Libya. If such an agreement is signed without any concomitant reforms to improve the social and economic circumstances of immigrants, this will add to the continuing infringements of human rights, meaning that we shall be advocating the forced return of immigrants to conditions which do not guarantee their safety or minimum acceptable living standards.
We need to demand that the Libyan authorities duly recognise the presence of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. We must also address the sensitive issue of the death penalty. The right thing to do would be to seek an agreement suspending its application in Libya, with the ultimate aim being its abolition.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am in favour of concluding the framework agreement between the European Union and Libya because it is a step forward compared to the past on important points such as immigration, cooperation in economic and health matters, particularly the fight against AIDS, and, to some extent, the energy programme.
Another important subject is Libya's control over terrorist activities, not only on its own territory, but also on the country's southern borders. Progress has been made with an agreement between the Council and the Libyan Government, including on general principles such as the Statute of Rome and the United Nations Convention on Refugees. Much remains to be done - that is obvious - but it is important for Parliament to support the agreement already negotiated without bringing it back into discussion and risk losing the results that have already been achieved.
I hope the collaboration between the European Union and Libya brings about the same results that were achieved with the Friendship Agreement between Libya and Italy, which, amongst other things, has settled the long-standing dispute over the country's colonial past. If one has to deal with governments and countries about specific issues, one cannot choose whom to talk to.
(NL) Mr President, the European Commission has provided a new export product to Libya, a rogue state, and its dictator Gaddafi. Oil production is not the only way that Libya makes money these days - it also enriches itself by blackmailing Europe. Dictator Gaddafi will pocket EUR 60 million of European taxpayers' money in return for preventing fortune seekers from Africa from reaching Europe. That EUR 60 million is just the beginning, because Mr Gaddafi is now demanding that that amount be increased to EUR 5 billion each year and backing up his demands with threats. It could be that the European Commission has allowed itself to be led astray by Mr Gaddafi's pretty face, but I do not trust that man one inch.
I have a few newspaper articles with me from recent years: Gaddafi demands billions from the EU. Libya puts pressure on London and Edinburgh. Gaddafi wants more money or else he will let Europe turn black. Gaddafi: 'Islam must become the religion of Europe'. Gaddafi rejects democracy in favour of strict observance of Sharia law. Gaddafi uses 30 million Africans who want to come to Europe as a bargaining chip. Gaddafi wants to launch a jihad against Switzerland.
Honourable Members of the European Parliament, we should not reward this scoundrel Gaddafi. We should punish him if Libya continues to allow so many refugees free access to Europe. Nor should we reward the refugees with refugee status or permanent residence. They should be sent straight back to Africa. Rewarding refugees with European refugee status, benefits and training programmes will lumber us with an even bigger stream of asylum seekers, with many drowning in the attempt to get a foothold on the European mainland. The European Union's generous and feeble asylum policy is the real cause of the large influx of asylum seekers.
(SV) Mr President, Libya is quite good at ratifying international agreements, but it seems to be just as good at refraining from implementing these agreements. It is a disgrace that Libya has a seat and a vote in the UN Human Rights Council. Incidentally, it is also a disgrace that Saudi Arabia does too. By means of forceful pressure from its largest trade partner, the EU, Libya really should be made to pay attention to what respect for human rights and freedoms means and what these entail.
As we all know, the EU's relations with Libya concern various aspects of how refugees should be treated. Until the Council and the Commission can persuade Libya to allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to reside lawfully in the country, it will not be feasible to feel the slightest degree of confidence about how refugees are treated in Libya.
Libya's leader is a master of capriciousness and unreliability. The EU is now about to conclude a framework agreement with him. I cannot help but wonder what the term 'framework' means to a regime like Colonel Gaddafi's, which shows disrespect without bounds when it comes to human rights issues. We know that Libya practices widespread discrimination against migrant workers on account of their nationality and that the racist persecution of African migrant workers exists.
Human dignity is more important than money. Therefore, respect of human rights and freedoms must, in fact, be so important as to prevent us from handing over people to a state in which torture or other forms of inhumane treatment are practised. This is, incidentally, what the charters of the European Union require.
(RO) Mr President, Libya is the European Union's third biggest supplier of oil and gas, while the Union is Libya's main trading partner, accounting for more than two thirds of this country's total trade. We must also take into account the progress made by the authorities in Tripoli, which have successfully shifted the country from a situation of isolation and embargos to becoming open and economically and diplomatically dynamic.
However, the European Union is not merely a community of economic interests, but is based on a set of values which we cannot abandon for the sake of pragmatism. Admittedly, Libya no longer sponsors terrorism, has abandoned its nuclear programme, agreed to pay compensation to the families of terrorist attack victims, released the Bulgarian nurses condemned to death for spreading HIV and concluded agreements with some European states. I think that we must encourage this progress, but the partnership between the European Union and Libya needs to have a solid moral foundation.
In this respect, the report from Mrs Gomes, whom I would like to congratulate on the job she has done, highlights the serious shortcomings in the respect for human rights, which we are duty-bound to tackle. Last year, we adopted a resolution in which we asked Libya to abolish capital punishment. I believe that it is appropriate for us to reiterate this request for abolition, backed up by the request to comply with international norms for legal fairness, especially as foreigners are victims of abuses.
Particular attention must be focused on the problem of migrants and refugees, both those extradited by Libya to their countries of origin where their lives are exposed to serious threats, and those returned by Italy to Libya where they are likely to face harsh reprisals. On the other hand, pressure is required for Libyan asylum legislation to be adopted and for agreements to open the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which kept a record in Libya of almost 13 000 refugees and asylum seekers.
As regards the readmission agreement as part of the EU-Libya Framework Agreement, I call on the Council to drop this plan as it would involve repatriation to a country which systematically violates human rights. The policy of the Berlusconi government cannot be accepted as the example to follow. The Italian exception must not become the European rule.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is barely credible for the European institutions to still want to conclude a framework agreement with a dictatorship like Libya.
We cannot go on saying that Libya has very important trading relations with European Union Member States and acts as a partner for the European Union in the Mediterranean basin, and putting respect for human rights as a secondary issue.
The primary condition for us to be able to start a credible dialogue with Libya is for that country to ratify the Geneva Convention. We cannot barter economic interests for human lives: not just the lives of Libyan citizens, but also of people from other countries who are fleeing civil wars and religious persecution and pass through Libya only to find death and horrendous torture.
We have a duty not to forget the thousands of calls for help made by people held in Libyan prisons. We cannot forget the horrors that Gandufa prison revealed to us.
Libyan citizens do not enjoy many political and civil rights, such as freedom of expression, assembly and association. The oral amendment by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), which seeks to replace the term 'treaty' in recital B with 'agreements between Italy and Libya on joint coastal patrols' is absolutely unacceptable, and the Italian delegation from Italia dei Valori will vote against it.
The agreement between Italy and Libya is much more complex: it is a treaty with precise conditions regarding more complex issues than joint coastal patrols. For the European Parliament to remain credible, it needs to call a spade a spade, even if that may be embarrassing.
A separate discourse needs to be entered into for the UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency, which is unable to carry out its work in Libya and is accused by the Libyan regime of incredible abuses and crimes. Are these the bases on which agreements should be conducted? We cannot deal with either terrorists or dictators. We are the European Parliament, not the board of directors of an economic giant.
(FR) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Gomes for giving us the chance to debate a mandate for negotiations that is certainly thorny, as is the content of the negotiations themselves. The Tunisian example should serve as a warning that we need to proceed very cautiously, especially in the way in which we report on the negotiations.
We cannot simply notch up successes as we go through the negotiations and celebrate because a regime such as the Gaddafi regime may have agreed to certain human rights references, for example, because that regime is well-known for its major violations of all fundamental rights. What is more, all the migrants who arrive on our shores, though they are increasingly fewer in number, say in so many words that they would rather drown on the way here than go back to Libya, because of the rapes, torture, abuse, forced repatriations, mass expulsions and racist acts. It has already been said, and I will repeat it: the list of serious, mass human rights abuses of migrants in Libya is long.
So yes, of course, I think it is absolutely urgent that we do everything in our power to improve these people's situation. This is a job for the High Commissioner for Refugees, and it is our task to resettle the individuals identified by the HCR. It is also a job for community-based organisations, which, at the moment, are extremely thin on the ground and need to be strengthened by all means possible.
I believe that, if we truly want to abide by the goals we have set for our foreign policy in the Treaties, we still have a long way to go before we can send migrants staying illegally in the EU back to Libya.
Mr President, back in 2007, President Sarkozy denied any link between the release of five Bulgarian nurses from Libya and the Libyan order for French missiles worth EUR 240 million.
These arms were sold to a country held responsible for the Lockerbie bombing and the supply of terrorist weapons. Yet even Gaddafi's son suggested that there was a link between the two deals. It was arms for prisoners.
In 2004, the EU removed the arms embargo against Libya in exchange for migration controls. That was arms for borders.
Now, the London Times reports that Baroness Ashton suddenly wants to drop the EU arms embargo against China, which was imposed because of the massacre in Tiananmen Square, saying it is 'a major impediment to developing stronger EU-China cooperation'.
Actually, I believe it is a major impediment to saving the euro, is it not? Just like the Libyan deal, it seems the EU is so desperate now to save the euro that it is prepared to risk our collective security, as only the Chinese have enough money to rescue the euro. This is arms for bonds. Chinese foreign exchange reserves are USD 2.9 trillion. It has already bought Greek, Spanish and Portuguese bonds. However, China is also the country that bans the word 'democracy' from its search engines and executes thousands every year.
So, I ask in all sincerity, just how low will the EU go to save the euro?
(DE) Mr President, the overthrow of the Tunisian Government has caused shock waves in neighbouring countries in the Maghreb region, which are mainly dictatorships, and also in Libya. A radical change of this kind is, of course, also an opportunity for democracy, but only when it cannot be exploited by Islamic agitators.
The unrest will certainly have an impact on the influx of refugees. Therefore, it is important for us to cooperate more closely with the African countries on the refugee problem. However, Colonel Gaddafi's call for the European Union to pay Africa at least EUR 5 billion a year to combat illegal immigration is definitely a move in the wrong direction. The countries of the European Union are already paying billions of euro in development aid. In my opinion, the aid system urgently needs to be reviewed to ensure that the aid no longer benefits dictatorships and corrupt regimes, but instead reaches the people who really need it.
In addition, the plight of Christians in Islamic countries must be given a higher priority in EU foreign relations.
(DE) Mr President, Mr Füle, we are responsible for all the men, women and children who seek refuge here because their lives are at risk. This responsibility is the result, on the one hand, of the moral values which Europe now represents and of the personal history of many Europeans, which is often forgotten in this context, and, on the other, of the legal guarantees given in international treaties and conventions.
If we take on responsibilities, then we must also be prepared to bear the accompanying burden. This means sharing it equally between the Member States. It definitely does not mean placing the responsibility on the shoulders of a few countries whose borders happen to coincide with the external borders of the EU or, and this is the reprehensible thing which I cannot condone, paying regimes such as that of Colonel Gaddafi to relieve us of the burden.
Let us have no misconceptions. If we can prevent people from undertaking a dangerous journey which may put their lives at risk, this is a good thing. However, Colonel Gaddafi and his regime are not concerned with saving lives or protecting people. They are only interested in hard financial facts. The European Union should beware of becoming the accomplice of a regime which shows a complete disregard for human rights.
I have visited the camps in Libya and seen what goes on there. We had the opportunity to speak with the people in charge. They are not concerned about human rights or about giving refuge to people. They complained that we had not given them any gunboats to allow them to defend their borders more effectively. We rightly have not supplied Colonel Gaddafi with any boats, because they could become dual-use items. We also have to take this into account. We must not betray our values simply because we want the economic benefits or a readmission agreement. I am also of the opinion that we should take a look at the negotiation mandate of all the Members of this House and not just a few. Secret diplomacy will not take us any further forward, particularly not following the experiences we in the European Union have had with the regime - and we cannot give it any other name - of Colonel Gaddafi. This is another point which we should not forget and I am calling on you to make sure of this. Mrs Gomes has mentioned all the criteria which must be met if we should ever reach the stage of an agreement.
(MT) Mr President, those who are against the agreement with Libya should appreciate that it is our neighbour! Neighbours cannot be ignored. A way has to be found to live with one's neighbour, though it does not necessarily mean agreeing with their way of doing things.
It is all very well for those colleagues who do not originate from a country neighbouring Libya to criticise this agreement, but it is far more difficult for those Mediterranean countries that lie at close proximity to Libya to find a way of cooperating with this country.
It is true that the agreement should also include a chapter on immigration, as well as a readmission agreement. Doubtless, this must also respect the right to international protection for all those who seek asylum.
(ES) Mr President, this debate on Libya is taking place at a time when very significant changes are happening in another neighbouring Mediterranean country: Tunisia.
I have always believed that the European Union must help to promote serious reforms in the Mediterranean region, with the aim of making it an area of freedom and prosperity. I refer to my speeches in this House in recent years, in which I have repeatedly said that the Union's policy cannot be focused on simply maintaining the status quo.
This is not, however, the specific issue being debated today, which is the Framework Agreement with Libya. I would like to stress the need to cooperate with Libya in managing migratory flows, including an agreement to readmit illegal immigrants including third-country nationals, as is the case in all readmission agreements concluded by the Union.
Giving in to Libyan positions that are contrary to this agreement would be detrimental given Libya's important position as a transit country, and it would also send a very negative message for the negotiations with Morocco and Algeria on readmission agreements, which have been in deadlock for many years.
However, we do also have to insist that the Libyan authorities respect the rights of refugees, including - as has already been said - the principle of non-refoulement.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Maghreb is going through difficult times. The bloody encounters in Tunisia over the last few days are conclusive proof of that.
It would be a serious mistake at this moment in history if we did not recognise the urgent and decisive need to strengthen relations with Libya, which lies at the heart of the Mediterranean and plays a vital role in containing and regulating the flows of migrants. Despite all its contradictions - I was in Libya with Mrs Gomes - there is no doubt that a framework agreement could certainly make a contribution to the fight against terrorism, to fundamental freedoms and to the energy issue. To ignore Libya and the Maghreb would truly be a very serious mistake.
A reference model is the Friendship Treaty with Italy, which could be implemented to ensure that this framework agreement is really solid.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I thank the Members of Parliament for their remarks. I will send the rapporteur, Ms Gomes, more details of national indicative plans for the years 2011-2013, showing EUR 60 million being provided for our programmes in Libya.
I am fully aware that certain topics are problematic in relations with Libya. Nonetheless, the European Union has taken the option of building relations with Libya in order to be able to address all issues in an open and constructive manner, including very sensitive ones like human rights, the respect for fundamental freedoms and the rights of migrants.
Last year, I visited the detention centre in the Libyan Desert with Cecilia Malmström. I have absolutely no illusions about the challenges we face. I also had the opportunity to understand what the alternatives are to our engagement in the field of migration.
Let me add a third, personal remark: we are not rewarding anyone with these negotiations; we are taking care of our interests in accordance with the values we believe in. Libya has shown its strong will to deepen relations with the European Union. We consider that this is positive and that the European Union should continue to pursue the policy of engagement. I am, of course, committed to ensuring that this will be done with full transparency, taking the views of the European Parliament into account.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to thank all my colleagues who have participated in this debate.
I think this debate highlights the dilemmas we face. From my own visit to Libya, as part of the delegation led by our colleague, Mr Panzeri, in November 2010, I came to the conclusion that we have to pursue the line of engagement. We recognise that we have to deal with a difficult interlocutor, but it would be unconscionable not to pursue that line because there are humanitarian obligations towards the people who are suffering so much in Libya, in particular, the migrants who are going through Libya and enduring the situation there.
I believe that many of the difficulties are due to the fact that this regime is isolated. Despite the difficulties, and despite having no illusions that we will achieve an agreement soon or that all the conditions that we put forward will be met, we need to pursue that line. In my opinion, this is clear.
Indeed, in that sense, having the EU delegation established in Tripoli is extremely important because I think that - as many have said here - what is happening in Tunisia now is bound to have repercussions in Libya, despite the differences. In Libya, we are not dealing with a similar situation in many respects because of the total dependency of the people on income from oil.
Nevertheless, I think that the message is that, despite our different perceptions at this stage, we are committed to following closely the negotiations by the Commission. I am grateful for the briefings we have had and which have been useful. We will follow them very closely and will be able to make recommendations at any time.
I think that through the very wide consensus achieved with the collaboration of my shadow rapporteurs and everybody, we are conveying a very clear message to the Council and to the Commission, which has the task of negotiation, but also to our Libyan interlocutors, on what points we believe are absolutely essential to be met if we are to achieve the improvements that we want to see in the bilateral relations, and also on the crucial question of respect for human rights in Libya. That message is very clear.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 20 January 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - I welcome the opening of negotiations between the EU and Libya, as a step to develop a new relationship for the EU in the Mediterranean region and in Africa. I also consider cooperation with Libya useful in addressing issues such as security and stability, migration, public health, development, trade, climate change, energy and culture.
However, I urge the Council and the Commission to press Libya to ratify and implement the Geneva Convention on Refugees of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol, including full cooperation with the UNHCR, so as to guarantee adequate protection and rights for migrants, and adopt asylum legislation that recognises refugees' status and rights accordingly, notably, the prohibition of collective expulsion and the principle of non-refoulement.
I also remind the Council and the Commission of their obligations to ensure full compliance of the EU's external policy with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly its Article 19, which prohibits collective expulsion and grants the principle of non-refoulement. I urge the Council and the Commission to request that the Libyan authorities sign a Memorandum of Understanding granting the UNHCR a legal presence in the country, with a mandate to exercise its full range of access and protection activities.