Explanations of vote
Luís Paulo Alves
I am voting for this report, as the European Council's proposal to create a permanent stability mechanism would create an intergovernmental procedure beyond the EU's scope, which would be a dangerous precedent. The European institutions, specifically the European Commission and Parliament, must be an integral part of this board with the Commission as a member, not an observer. Parliament is an important organisation for democratic monitoring, and the Council should consider the proposal made by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament regarding a possible compromise on Parliament's involvement in the mechanism's operational components. As such, I would stress the report's idea that 'the mechanism must not give rise to a new model of European governance which falls short of the level of democratic standards achieved in the Union'. Moreover, the stability mechanism must be viewed as only a part of the framework of solutions for European economic governance, for example, the Commission should investigate the potential of a future system of Eurobonds.
Sophie Auconie
The European Council, which brings together European Heads of State or Government, is currently debating the implementation of a stability mechanism for Member States belonging to the euro area. The aim is to collectively ensure the financial stability of the Union, which is today being undermined. In this resolution, which I feel is balanced, Parliament welcomes this initiative, but issues a request to go beyond the temporary measures intended to stabilise the euro area. I share this point of view and feel that the EU must continue to strengthen its economic governance, in order, of course, to stabilise, but also to encourage sustainable growth.
Zigmantas Balčytis
in writing. - (LT) Today we voted in favour of the amendment of Article 136 of the Lisbon Treaty, which will enable the EU to establish a stability mechanism which is only intended for members of the euro area. The European stability mechanism will be aimed at reinforcing budgetary discipline and coordination of economic and financial policies of the euro area Member States, including the promotion of a joint European response to such challenges as growth, overcoming economic and social imbalances and improving competitiveness. I believe that this mechanism will ensure greater financial stability for the euro area and will speed up the economic recovery of euro area Member States. However, countries not in the euro club, which were worst affected by the crisis, remain in the sidelines, and the road to more rapid and sustainable economic recovery will be blocked. I feel that the EU must show greater solidarity and provide the Member States with full assistance to enable them to join the club of euro area countries and become fully-fledged EU Member States.
Slavi Binev
in writing. - (BG) As a representative of Bulgaria in the European Parliament, I voted against the draft decision because I think that it imposes double standards, which is something I strongly oppose. We have already seen such double standards in the case of Greece, which, rather than being punished, was rewarded with EUR 120 billion, while Bulgaria worries about its future in the euro area being on hold.
Jan Březina
in writing. - (CS) The introduction of the stability mechanism for states paying in euro marks the first use of the simplified revision option in the Lisbon Treaty. This is a revision which should also be supported by countries not paying in euro, since the stability of the euro is undoubtedly in their vital interest. However, this mechanism should not be overused, in my opinion, and I am pleased we have upheld the idea that it should be activated only in cases where it really is absolutely essential. This is an important signal as regards the responsibility of states and of creditors, since it does not establish a 'transfer Union' in which financially irresponsible states would run their affairs at the expense of the financial standing of countries having consolidated public finances. In contrast to that, I am not concerned that the proposed revision would create the conditions for introducing a stability mechanism entirely outside the scope of the Union. The interpretation and application of the relevant provision of the Lisbon Treaty will, in any event, be under the control of the European Court of Justice. The willingness or otherwise of states to involve other Union bodies in this mechanism must be respected, and any intergovernmental nature of the mechanism surely does not have to be a priori at the expense of quality or democratic legitimacy. As long as the financial side of the stability mechanism is linked to national budgets, it is quite understandable and logical that the mechanism should have an intergovernmental nature.
Zuzana Brzobohatá
in writing. - (CS) The report includes a proposal for a European stability mechanism, representing an integral part of an overall package of measures proposed with the aim of creating a new framework, while at the same time improving budgetary discipline and coordination of the economic and financial policy of Member States, which should also include support for a common European response to problems in the area of growth, leading at the same time to the elimination of economic and social inequalities, and to greater competitiveness. In my opinion, the Commission's call to consider other mechanisms as well for securing financial stability and economic growth in the eurozone is quite correct. I also believe the Commission is entirely right to call for the submission of legislative proposals that would include a stability mechanism and measures for reducing risks in the interests of financial, economic and social stability in the European Union, including the effective regulation of financial markets. It is entirely appropriate to review the stability and growth pact. The report also supports the introduction of instruments for reducing macroeconomic imbalances in the eurozone, and measures aimed at environmental renewal. For the reasons mentioned above, and for other reasons too, I have decided to support the report.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho
I voted for Parliament's resolution because I agree that the European stability mechanism constitutes an important part of a global package of measures designed to define a new framework, reinforcing budgetary discipline and the coordination of Member States' economic and financial policies. This should include the promotion of a joint response by the European Union to growth challenges, concomitantly overcoming economic and social imbalances and improving competitiveness.
Nikolaos Chountis
I voted against the report on amendment of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro. The Heads of State or Government of the European Union have responded to the economic crisis with austerity measures and public spending cuts. These measures and policies have brought the workers to their knees in most countries in Europe, in that they take the form of wage cuts, pension cuts, cutbacks to social rights and soaring unemployment. Basically, they are being forced to pay for the consequences of the economic crisis by those who caused it. This amendment to the Treaty paves the way for stepping up austerity measures and 'tops off' a package of 'supervisory' measures which includes the economic governance package and the European semester. The 'pact for the euro' basically overrides national economic policy and almost forcibly turns the institution of the euro area into a tool for Germany to exercise its economic policy. I also disagree with this particular use of the simplified procedure for revising the Treaty. I believe that the most appropriate method for amending the Treaties is by referendum in all the Member States.
Carlos Coelho
I voted for the report by Mr Brok and Mr Gualtieri, who recognise the need, within the Union's constitutional framework, to make viable the creation of a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro. Practice demonstrates that greater economic governance is needed within the EU, which will impact on economic and financial policy, and enable greater budgetary discipline.
The report rightly stresses that temporary measures are insufficient and that any attempt to create a system outside the EU's institutional framework is a threat to the Union project; for this reason, it also rightly calls for a more significant role for the European Commission.
I also agree with the call for the Commission to table any legislative measures that might prove necessary to strengthen financial stability and sustainable economic growth.
George Sabin Cutaş
I voted for the report on the stability mechanism for the Member States in the euro area, given that this mechanism marks a step towards better coordination of economic policies at European level. At the same time, a global package of measures is required which will aim to achieve economic stability and boost competitiveness in the EU.
Cornelis de Jong
in writing. - I rejected the proposal as a whole as I do not believe it solves the problems. I agree with ETUC that the proposed changes will be 'paving the way to interfere with social dialogue and intervene in collective bargaining systems all over Europe'.
Furthermore, I disagree with the choice of the simplified Treaty revision procedure. I believe that the ordinary Treaty revision procedure should be used in order to allow for a proper and in-depth discussion about the proposed stability mechanism and other possible changes to the treaties, for example a social progress clause.
Finally, I urge the Member States to enable referenda in all Member States on proposals for Treaty change.
Proinsias De Rossa
in writing. - I welcome today's vote in the European Parliament on the proposed Treaty change. However, it is a matter of the utmost importance for the Heads of State Summit this weekend to honour its agreement with the European Parliament. As far as most MEPs are concerned, the process used by the Council in arriving at their proposed text is very unsatisfactory. If it were not for the fact that it is extremely important for the eurozone and that a permanent European stability mechanism (ESM) is urgently required, particularly for small Member States such as Ireland, I for one would be voting against the original proposal. The text we have agreed on in the European Parliament today is the minimum necessary to ensure legitimacy for the setting up of the Mechanism and its operation. However it does not signal any agreement by the Socialists and Democrats Group to the draconian austerity programmes expected of some Member States without reference to their economic sustainability.
Marielle De Sarnez
Parliament supports the limited amendment of the Treaty on European Union to allow for the implementation of a permanent stability mechanism for the euro area, which should be formally established during the European Council meetings of 24 and 25 March, by the amendment of Article 136 of the Treaty. This decision will help to make the financial stability mechanism, which has proved it effectiveness since being created last May, more permanent. We will thus have a healthy EUR 700 billion mechanism for providing loans, at the best rate and under strict conditions, to euro area countries in difficulty. It was, however, inconceivable that the amendment of the Treaties would consolidate a mechanism based solely on intergovernmental commitments. The Community method, which we favour, is the guarantee that all Member States of the euro area will receive equal treatment in accessing, subject to strict conditionality, this rescue fund. As for the International Monetary Fund, we will remain extremely vigilant with regard to the conditions of its participation.
Edite Estrela
in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the report to amend the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro, as it is essential to stabilising the euro area in the long term, to limiting speculation against European countries and to protecting the public.
Despite the mechanism's intergovernmental nature, I believe that it is positive to strengthen the Union method, along with the role of the European institutions in the EU's economic governance, specifically that of the Commission and the European Parliament.
Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund
in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats support this report as a whole. At the same time, however, we believe that the wording of the text relating to a consolidated Eurobonds market goes too far. We consider the creation of a Eurobonds system to be an interesting and promising idea, but we believe that the matter must be investigated properly before it can be considered appropriate to go on to actually implement it. We currently know far too little for it to be possible to take any definitive decisions at this stage.
Diogo Feio
At exceptional times in the history of states and organisations, such as these which we are now experiencing, we have a joint obligation to find appropriate and ambitious responses to the challenges we face. The debt crisis that Europe is fighting demands exceptional measures and the necessary maturity to find, within our institutional structure, the path towards mechanisms which will provide the euro with the necessary stability and resilience. Measures which are firmly anchored in budgetary discipline, in the coordination of macroeconomic policies and in the existence of sustainable growth policies.
While I advocate legislative stability, it is because we are living through exceptional times that I support the currently proposed amendment of Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to such an extent as to enable the creation of a permanent mechanism to safeguard the stability of the euro area, as proposed in report, adopted by this Chamber on 20 October 2010.
José Manuel Fernandes
The European Union must strengthen its economic governance, which will only be achieved using the Union method, with the Commission's leadership, rather than the intergovernmental method.
I hope that the strengthening of the Stability and Growth Pact, the European Semester, the Europe 2020 Strategy and the amendment of Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism will result in sustainable economic growth. The workings of this mechanism must respect the fundamental principles of democratic decision-making, such as transparency, parliamentary monitoring and democratic responsibility. This mechanism constitutes an important part of a global package of measures aimed at defining a new framework in order to reinforce budgetary discipline and the coordination of Member States' economic and financial policies, which should include the promotion of a joint European response to growth challenges, concomitantly overcoming economic and social imbalances and improving competitiveness.
I voted in favour of creating this mechanism in the hope that it will be a valuable contribution to conferring greater stability on the financial markets and providing sustainable economic growth.
João Ferreira
The intended simplified way of amending the Treaty is highly revealing of the vacuity of the claims of belief in the importance that the Treaty of Lisbon would ascribe to national parliaments - as well as the European Parliament - and of the falseness of all the rhetoric concerning deepening democracy. Little more than a year down the line, the Treaty, which was supposed to last at least a generation, is then being amended, in a quick and simplified way because of the desire and pressure from the directorate of powers led by Germany, which wishes to preserve at all costs the economic and political dominance guaranteed to it by the instruments of this EU, including the single currency. Discussion, participation and democracy fall by the wayside.
If, in order to adopt the Treaty of Lisbon, they shied away from national referenda - and disrespected the few that were carried out - they now do not hesitate to escape even the scrutiny of the national parliaments. It is understandable if we consider the fact that, with the mechanism that they now wish to include in the Treaty and with so-called 'economic governance', there is a risk of these becoming meaningless words. There is no longer any doubt that they are intending to create a veritable straightjacket for the Member States, so that they may implement the strategy of deepening...
(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170 of the Rules of Procedure)
Ilda Figueiredo
We are against the entire process involving the announced amendment of the Treaty of Lisbon, as regards not just to its substance, but also to its form.
The strict conditionality for the concession of financial assistance under the European stability mechanism is unacceptable for a number of reasons, the most significant of which is the possibility of removing powers from and interfering in the governing of the European Union Member States whose currency is the euro; interference in the budgetary, social and labour areas is particularly serious.
It is an amendment which uses a mechanism of the Treaty itself to sideline everyone, enabling not just an amendment without any democratic participation - and, furthermore, continuing what they did by rejecting national referenda to adopt the Treaty - it creates a mechanism enabling permanent monitoring of Member States' economies.
This report is along the same lines, tabling certain proposed amendments to the Commission's draft of the amendment to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro. However, it always aims to consolidate the desired boost provided as part of the aforementioned economic governance, with the creation of the 'European Semester', the deepening of penalties...
(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170 of the Rules of Procedure)
Pat the Cope Gallagher
According to legal opinion, a limited amendment to the Treaty is needed to ensure that the European stability mechanism is within the European Union institutional framework.
Estelle Grelier
In the absence of other alternative solutions proposed by the Council, it was necessary to vote in favour of making the European stability mechanism permanent, in order to provide assistance to our Greek, Portuguese and Irish colleagues. However, the debate is far from over. This concession made by the French socialists is not an indicator of the outcome of other forthcoming debates on the economic governance issue. Faced with the introduction of this intergovernmental mechanism, it is important to move forward and implement instruments which will encourage recovery in growth and business. It is, among other things, to ensure that we are able to finance such instruments that I am campaigning alongside my socialist colleagues for an increase in the European Union's own resources. We could also use the Structural Funds in conjunction with the European stability mechanism to make deficit countries converge upwards. It is with ambitious budgets and the promotion of a European social model that we will be able to emerge from the crisis.
Sylvie Guillaume
I voted in favour of a stability mechanism (ESM) for the Member States of the euro area in order to help those of our neighbours that are in difficulty. This mechanism is an embryo of what the Eurobonds could be in future in terms of their ability to finance the Union's budget and to release the financial markets' stranglehold on the sovereign debt of Member States. I regret, however, the ESM approval method chosen - a simple consultation of the European Parliament - because the intergovernmental approach has prevailed over the Community approach. This poses a risk to the quality of democratic debate, which is nevertheless necessary in order to implement an effective economic policy. This mechanism remains a partial response which is not sufficient to encourage growth and reduce unemployment.
Gerald Häfner
I saw it as my duty, as a Member of Parliament, to achieve the maximum possible level of democratic control and integration of the European stability mechanism in the negotiations. The result is thus a great improvement on the original proposal. I am therefore voting in favour. However, I would like to set out my basic objections to the route upon which we have embarked. The ordinary Treaty revision procedure should have been required for the ESM. This would have enabled it to be set up within the Community framework with democratic participation and control. Reverting to the intergovernmental method is fatal. We are privatising (speculative) profits and socialising the losses. That is the wrong way to go. We let taxpayers suffer, but protect the banks, asset managers and speculators. The public sector is lending money to the banks here. It is the public sector that is bearing the costs - not the private sector. Without a fundamentally new concept of money and clear legal rules for the banking and financial sector we will continue to be only ever treating the symptoms, without remedying the underlying causes.
Ian Hudghton
in writing. - I abstained throughout the voting on this report. Scotland is not within the eurozone and I therefore consider it appropriate to withhold my vote on this issue. Having said that, I note that paragraph 6 refers to Europe's smaller nations 'whose economy may be seen as not "indispensable" for the purposes of safeguarding the euro area as a whole'. I feel that this paragraph displays a dangerous arrogance; the EU is the sum of all its parts and the importance of all European economies is equal, regardless of size. History shows that unions based upon the dominance of larger members are doomed to fail.
Juozas Imbrasas
in writing. - (LT) I voted in favour of this report, because the amendment of the Lisbon Treaty adopted will facilitate the establishment of the permanent euro stability mechanism. The situation today shows that we are in a difficult economic and financial situation and that we must take very specific actions regarding economic coordination and surveillance. However, this mechanism and the Guarantee Fund is only intended for euro area members, while countries not in the euro area will be sidelined, causing greater fragmentation of the EU. In my opinion, the EU must show greater solidarity, by providing assistance to non-euro area countries as well as countries in the euro area, so that they become full and equal EU Member States as quickly as possible, and we would thus eliminate a temporary discrepancy in the EU accession agreement and contribute to the creation of a more cohesive EU.
Giovanni La Via
in writing. - (IT) The resolution on the proposal to amend the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, approved in Parliament, concerning the provision of a European stability mechanism for the euro area, is an important goal for strengthening the cohesion and competitiveness of the economy and stabilising the financial system. I voted for the amendment, given the significance of the euro to the European political and economic plan for sustainable growth. The stabilisation of the euro area is of strategic importance, and I believe that Europe must include measures to strengthen it, increasing its economic governance in light of the objectives to be pursued by the EU 2020 Strategy. Lastly, I believe in the need for a permanent stability mechanism to provide for the involvement of Community institutions, both to avoid the setting-up of double structures and because establishing a mechanism outside the institutional framework of the EU would constitute a threat to the integrity of the system based on the Treaties.
Kartika Tamara Liotard
in writing. - I rejected the proposal as a whole as I do not believe it solves the problems. I agree with ETUC when they say that the proposed changes will be '... paving the way to interfere with social dialogue and intervene in collective bargaining systems all over Europe'. Furthermore I disagree with the choice of the simplified Treaty revision procedure. I believe that the ordinary Treaty revision procedure should be used in order to allow for a proper and in-depth discussion about the proposed stability mechanism and other possible changes to the Treaties, for example a social progress clause. Finally, I urge the Member States to enable referenda in all Member States on proposals for Treaty change.
Petru Constantin Luhan
in writing. - (RO) I regard the stability mechanism as being particularly important and vital to the Member States which use the euro as their currency in terms of strengthening the single currency and supporting the European political and economic project. Strengthening and ensuring the stability of the single currency provide the market with security and make adopting the euro more attractive to new Member States. This matter is crucial to Europe's growth and development, values which I support in every respect. Consequently, I voted in favour of this report.
David Martin
in writing. - I am pleased with the results which Parliament has secured through negotiations with the Council, and as a result I supported this Treaty change. Giving a legal basis to a stability mechanism is vital to the immediate and long-term stability of the euro zone. The Council has given assurances that in future there will be a strong role for the Parliament and the Commission, which I believe is very important. While I approve this Treaty change I have very serious concerns regarding the current economic governance proposals, and voting in favour of this report is not an endorsement of the current economic governance package.
Clemente Mastella
in writing. - (IT) The new European stability mechanism requires an amendment to the Treaty of Lisbon, to ensure its legally valid inclusion within the institutional framework of the European Union. We believe that this should be accompanied by a strengthening of the preventive and corrective arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and measures relating to medium- and long-term competitiveness. Measures, in other words, capable of promoting a common European response, in order to better address the macro-economic imbalances between Member States and to ensure their sustainable growth. The European stability mechanism is therefore an important element of a comprehensive package of new measures (together with the European Semesters and the EU 2020 Strategy), aimed at establishing a new framework for strengthening and coordinating economic and financial policies and budgetary discipline. To ensure respect for the core principles of democratic decision-making such as transparency, parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability, Parliament must be adequately informed and involved. In addition, we support the need for each national parliament to be fully involved, in accordance with their budgetary and control rights, in order to increase the transparency, ownership and accountability of decisions taken, including at European level.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon
This report endorses the institutionalisation of the control of the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) over the budgets and the political reforms of the Member States of the euro area. It does not say a word about the social injustices that citizens will suffer in order to take advantage of the financial assistance that the European stability mechanism will provide. Neither does it mention the causes of the crisis, which is driving the Member States to agree to bleed their populations dry in order to reassure the financial markets. What is worse, it supports an abuse of authority which consists in using the simplified revision procedure of the Treaty of Lisbon in order to try and avoid a possible referendum. My group is the only one to set itself apart in demanding that referendums be held in all the Member States. Your European oligarchy fears democracy. It is right to do so, as the people of Europe, following the example of the North Africans, want to tell it to clear off!
Nuno Melo
We must not hesitate in combating the sovereign debt crisis that has been affecting some countries in the euro area. In another, less serious situation, I would not agree with the proposed amendment of the Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force so recently.
At this time, it is essential to go beyond temporary measures to stabilise the euro area and there is no doubt that the EU must reinforce its means of combating the sovereign debt crisis. As such, the amendment of Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is essential to create a permanent European stability mechanism that will be effective in assisting Member States in difficulties.
Willy Meyer
I voted against this report because in no way is this the solution to the economic crisis we are experiencing. The proposed changes pave the way for social dialogue to be torpedoed. Moreover, I do not agree with the choice of the simplified Treaty revision procedure. I am of the opinion that the simplified Treaty revision procedure should be used to create an atmosphere favourable to an in-depth discussion of the proposed stability mechanism and of other possible mechanisms, such as the social progress clause. Finally, we call on the Member States to lay the ground for referenda on potential modifications of the Treaty.
Alajos Mészáros
in writing. - (HU) I represent a country from the euro area which at the time did not support the loan for Greece. This was a decision that naturally no one was pleased about. I sincerely hope that similar decisions will not have to be made often. The crisis spared neither the euro area nor the European Union, but our common currency has already proven itself on several occasions. It provides its users with a form of unity and protection which we can be rightly proud of as an EU achievement. For precisely this reason we must protect our currency against future economic swings with an appropriate legislative framework. Thanks to the current Treaty amendment, a European stability mechanism will replace the temporary stability tool. The mechanism reform offers a chance to those in trouble, thus I would prefer it to be used rarely. This is one of the last moments when we can coordinate our economic and financial systems. I supported this highly realistic and constructive solution with my vote. As Parliament has said before, the structural causes of the crisis need to be tackled. A repeat of a situation similar to the experiences of the recent past must be prevented.
Louis Michel
The debt crisis in the euro area has proven the need to establish an economic union and economic governance as quickly as possible. The European stability mechanism is an important aspect of the measure aiming to strengthen the budgetary discipline and coordination of the Member States' economic and financial policies. It is the first step in a series of changes required to establish a credible economic government.
The permanent stability mechanism is the subject of an intergovernmental agreement, which unfortunately means that the unanimity rule will be applied. This is a dangerous approach as it could play into the hands of Eurosceptics. Ideally this mechanism should have been incorporated into the Community system.
Indeed, the Commission should be able, in agreement with the Member States, to manage the objectives of the permanent stability mechanism rather than being limited to technical monitoring. Lastly, while it may have been necessary to use the simplified revision procedure in this case, I believe that it must remain an exception.
Rolandas Paksas
in writing. - (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because it is important for the whole of the European Union as it recovers from the tough economic crisis. Consequently it is very important to establish such a mechanism that would stabilise the euro area and ensure its effective and efficient functioning and development. The European stability mechanism is a permanent aid fund assisting euro area Member States affected by the crisis. However, for this mechanism to function effectively it must be brought fully into the institutional framework of the Union. Above all, it is necessary to ensure that it is open from the outset to all Member States, even those whose currency is not the euro. I believe that it is advisable to provide for financial measures which would give the opportunity to purchase bonds from those countries that are facing enormous debt problems. This would pave the way for them to access financial markets while encouraging a speedier economic recovery. I agree with the proposal that other EU institutions should also be involved in the mechanism's management process, and that the Commission should be given more powers, in order to effectively implement the Union's expanded functions in this area.
Alfredo Pallone
in writing. - (IT) I voted for the amendment of the Treaty with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro. I hope that Member States will come to a quick decision over its details and specificity. However, I do not think that the debate stops here. Indeed, I believe that in the coming months and years the issue to be faced will be whether to and how to use these contributions. I refer, for example, to the matter of Eurobonds. In a situation like the present, in which Member States are asked, on the one hand, to implement severe budget policies to reduce deficits and debts and, on the other, to pay contributions to participate in the stabilisation fund, there is a real risk of collapse and a risk of States no longer being able to finance themselves. The European economy cannot be revitalised unless, at the same time, we use the strength of the euro on international markets and the resulting improved credit rating for its recovery. The collection of money at European level allows Member States to cut spending to avoid overlap and to achieve a better return on their investment.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves
Strengthening the EU's economic governance has become a priority, especially in the current international economic situation. In fact, when the Treaty of Lisbon came into force on 1 December 2009, there were no expectations that it would have to endure amendments in the near future. However, the well known, exceptional circumstances in financial, economic and also, now, social terms are the deciding factor for this amendment, which has a majority political support.
Nevertheless, I cannot fail to stress that this simplified revision process must not set precedents for future constitutional revisions when there are no truly exceptional circumstances, such as these we are currently experiencing. I agree that there is a need for a concerted and coherent economic and financial policy between the Member States of the euro area, which could guarantee the cohesion and stability of the euro area, so I voted in favour of this report aimed at amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as institutionalising a permanent European financial stability mechanism with the aim of guaranteeing stability and financial assistance, according to certain conditions, specifically a rigorous analysis and the application of an economic and financial recovery programme.
Crescenzio Rivellini
in writing. - (IT) Today we voted, during the mini part-session at the European Parliament in Brussels, on the report 'amending the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro'.
On 16 December 2010, the European Council decided to consult the European Parliament under the simplified revision procedure laid down in Article 48(6) of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning a proposal to revise Article 136 of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro. The objective of the proposal drafted by our colleague, Mr Brok, and fellow Member, Mr Gualtieri, is to add a paragraph to ensure that Member States whose currency is the euro are able to establish a mechanism to be activated in case of need to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole, stating that the granting of any necessary financial assistance under the mechanism will be subject to strict conditions.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
in writing. - According to the report voted today, the EP:
1. Emphasises that the monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro is a Union-exclusive competence and has been a Community policy since the Maastricht Treaty; and
2. Stresses the importance of the euro for the European political and economic project, and underlines the importance of the commitment made by all Member States in favour of the stability of the euro area and the sense of responsibility and solidarity they have shown.
At the same time, it considers that it is essential to go beyond the temporary measures aiming at stabilising the euro area, and that the Union should build up its economic governance, including by means of policies and instruments designed to promote sustainable growth in Member States, and takes the view that the reinforcement of the SGP, the European Semester, the EU 2020 Strategy and the amendment of Article136 TFEU concerning the stability mechanism are only a first step in that direction.
Licia Ronzulli
in writing. - (IT) I support the wording of this resolution because I believe that the monetary policy of the euro should remain an exclusive competence of the European institutions, since this would avoid the setting-up of double structures which would prove detrimental to European integration.
All Member States currently coordinate their economic policies in accordance with measures dictated by the European institutions for the stability of the entire euro area. The current draft Council decision could create a decision-making mechanism on the stability of the euro that is outside the sphere of Parliament and the Commission. For this reason, the stability mechanism is a joint response to economic and social growth challenges and to encourage the introduction of the euro in the remaining Member States. I hope that the setting up and functioning of a permanent stability mechanism will involve the contribution of the entire European institutional framework, and when necessary, through the use of the enhanced cooperation procedure in order to ensure the transparency of all decisions.
Søren Bo Søndergaard
in writing. - I rejected the proposal as a whole as I do not believe it solves the problems. I agree with ETUC when they say that the proposed changes will be '... paving the way to interfere with social dialogue and intervene in collective bargaining systems all over Europe'. Furthermore I disagree with the choice of the simplified Treaty revision procedure. I believe that the ordinary Treaty revision procedure should be used in order to allow for a proper and in-depth discussion about the proposed stability mechanism and other possible changes to the treaties, for example a social progress clause. Finally, I urge the Member States to enable referenda in all Member States on proposals for Treaty change.
Eva-Britt Svensson
in writing. - We rejected the proposal as a whole as we do not believe it solves the problems. We agree with ETUC when they say that the proposed changes will be '...paving the way to interfere with social dialogue and intervene in collective bargaining systems all over Europe'. Furthermore we disagree with the choice of the simplified Treaty revision procedure. We believe that the ordinary Treaty revision procedure should be used in order to allow for a proper and in-depth discussion about the proposed stability mechanism and other possible changes to the treaties, for example a social progress clause. Finally, we urge the Member States to enable referenda in all Member States on proposals for Treaty change.
Nuno Teixeira
The sovereign crisis affecting the Member States is obliging the European Union to rethink its economic strategy. The Union's economic governance is gradually becoming a reality. There is a need for a concerted and coherent economic and financial policy between the Member States of the euro area: a true 'pact for the euro'. Therefore, and to guarantee the stability of the euro area, this report aims to amend Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as to institutionalise a permanent European financial stability mechanism with the aim of guaranteeing stability and financial assistance, according to certain conditions, specifically a rigorous analysis, and the application of an economic and financial recovery programme.
I am voting for this amendment because I believe it to be essential to institutionalise the European mechanism and simultaneously make it more flexible. Nevertheless, I cannot fail to underline that it must take into account the competences of the European institutions, so an institutional framework separate from these must not be created. Current events require the uptake of serious and real positions at Member State level, particularly those states in the euro area. However, I cannot fail to stress that this simplified revision process must not set precedents for future constitutional revisions.
Thomas Ulmer
in writing. - (DE) I voted in favour of this addendum to the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union because it has logical consequences for economic governance and promotes further coherence in the euro area with a view to common financial policy. Moreover, it is right that no country is given discounts and that no distinction is made between good and bad debt. The pact between generations means that the burden of debt is always passed on to subsequent generations, restricting their freedom to act and their future opportunities.
Dominique Vlasto
The draining of European public finances as a result of the Member States' crucial commitment to controlling the fall in growth following the financial crisis has created significant public deficits which are subject to frenzied speculation. It required the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to be made permanent. I welcome the institutionalisation of this instrument, which clearly expresses solidarity within the euro area, and which, in return, calls on its members to be more responsible. Firstly, activating this mechanism provides assistance to Member States in serious financial difficulty and, secondly, the mechanism requires those States, in return, to reduce their deficit. By implementing a shared approach to the management of part of the Member States' public debt and by making their economies converge, this mechanism is in fact part of a more comprehensive strategy which my political family broadly supports, namely economic governance of the euro area. We are not talking here about a theoretical gadget or a European gimmick; we are talking about a clear need and about real progress for Europe. The strength of our currency, our capacity to import at low cost and our ability to attract investment to Europe are dependent on this strategy.
Angelika Werthmann
in writing. - (DE) The Brok/Gualtieri report explicitly states that the Council - and thus the Member States - have failed to implement the Stability and Growth Pact fully and that ways of stabilising the Pact that exist in the treaties have not been exploited. Moreover, with this report Parliament gives its backing to the European Commission and unreservedly supports its 'intention to ensure consistency between the future mechanism and the Union's economic governance' in order to prevent any future crisis like the one we have at present. As early as paragraph 3 of the report it is established that the European Parliament sees the stability mechanism as 'part of a global package of measures which are designed to define a new framework, reinforcing budgetary discipline and coordination of economic and financial policies of the Member States'. I share this view of many of my fellow Members.
Anna Záborská
in writing. - (SK) The single currency has brought greater freedom to Europe. However, freedom must always go hand in hand with responsibility. This is where the problem lies. Some Member States apparently did not take their own share of responsibility for the common currency very seriously. They now need to borrow more money for the gradual repayment of these debts, but the banks no longer trust them. The countries that acted responsibly had a choice: allow the debtors to go bankrupt, or show solidarity. As a staunch European, I am glad that the principle of solidarity prevailed. At the same time, however, I expect the new mechanism to be applied cautiously, in order to avoid what we see happening today, with both Greece and Ireland requesting more aid on top of the original amount. I also expect that our solidarity will not be abused by those who need it, or by those who are seeking a convenient pretext for tax harmonisation and other ways to curtail Member State sovereignty.


Situation in Pakistan (debate)
President
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the situation in Pakistan.
Manuel Lobo Antunes
President-in-Office of the Council. (PT) Mr President, honourable Members, I welcome the opportunity to speak here about Pakistan, undoubtedly a very important country which, as it happens, does not always receive the attention it deserves. I know that some of the honourable Members consider relations with Pakistan to be of particular interest, so I am delighted to be able to set out the Council's position on the country and hear your opinions.
The situation in Pakistan is developing rapidly in the run up to the elections and we hope that cooperation with the European Parliament will remain good over the coming months. The EU a long history of relations with Pakistan, dating back to 1976 when our first cooperation agreement was set up.
Unfortunately, for a number of reasons lasting recent years, relations have not been as close as either side would have liked. It was for this reason that in 2005 the EU embarked upon a review of its policy towards Pakistan, since the Council recognised that certain issues in the country were posing challenges. It was also firmly agreed that the only effective policy would be resolutely to maintain regular contact with the Pakistani government. From this decision came the joint EU-Pakistan declaration, adopted in Berlin on 8 February. Thus, our political dialogue was formalised and the way was open to implement the 2004 cooperation agreement, also known as a third generation agreement, in full.
As a result, relations between the EU and Pakistan have been operating on a new footing since the beginning of this year. It is our hope that this will contribute towards better understanding between the two sides. This is a step forward in a long-term process to establish cooperation that we hope will be fruitful. It is also an acknowledgment of the importance that the EU ascribes to Pakistan as a partner country.
At the same time, although we have defined our long-term direction, there are some matters that must be dealt with in the short term. We know that Parliament has certain concerns regarding recent events and we share some of these. All our attention over the last week has been focused on the fighting around the Red Mosque in Islamabad. I do not want to get into a discussion as to what gave rise to the current situation. Rather, I would like to commend the government on its decision to face up to those who preach intolerance. Naturally, we would all have liked to see a peaceful outcome to the impasse but the fact that the government took a stance against radical extremism is important. A distinction must be made between those who preach violence and those who demonstrate peacefully.
The Council was extremely concerned about the violence that broke out in Karachi in May. It is essential that everything possible is done to prevent the same thing from happening again. The Council is monitoring the situation in Pakistan closely through its permanent contacts with EU embassies in Islamabad. We hope that all sides will show restraint and, in particular, that the force of law and order will act proportionately and use as little force as possible when dealing with civilians.
The Council is also following the case of Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry very closely. It is important that the legal proceedings against Mr Chaudhry are handled fairly with no undue interference. The media must also be free to carry out its mission of informing without suffering intimidation. In general, it is the EU's desire to see Pakistan continue along its path towards informed moderation, respecting international norms where democratic principles and the rule of law are concerned. This is the understanding upon which our relations are based. As Article 1 of the 2004 cooperation agreement states, respect for human rights and democratic principles constitutes an essential element of the agreement. We intend to work on this basis.
The general election means that Pakistan is faced with a choice in 2007. The EU fully supports all steps taken towards a sustainable democracy in Pakistan, the strengthening of its democratic institutions and good government of the country. The EU considers it important, therefore, that Pakistan's next elections be free and fair. We consider it equally important that the next President of Pakistan be elected in accordance with the law. The salient point is that the government must be given strength arising from democratic legitimacy. This will be needed if it is to rise to Pakistan's many challenges.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. Mr President, we have all witnessed, as the Council President has just mentioned, the events around the Red Mosque in Islamabad and the latest reports say that most of the compound has now been cleared and that the operation has entered its final stage. I sincerely hope that no more lives will be lost. It has come as a shock to me to see these scenes take place in the very heart of the Pakistani capital with hundreds of men and women involved. It is very regrettable that those who continue to resist did not, as Mr Lobo Antunes said, accept the peaceful solution.
I very much appreciate the patience shown by the government in trying to reach a negotiated solution in order to avoid bloodshed, especially as children have been forced to stay behind in the mosque against their own will and that of their parents. What this episode has clearly demonstrated to the people of Pakistan and to the wider world is what dangers religious fundamentalism and intolerance can pose for us and for what is essentially a moderate and peaceful society.
Over the last couple of months the students and clerics of the Red Mosque have in effect tried to take the law into their own hands. I firmly believe this is not the direction in which the people of Pakistan would like their country to move. The government is right to address this phenomenon in a decisive manner. Other events, including several recent bombings in North-West Frontier Province and last Friday's alleged attack against President Musharraf's plane, clearly show that Pakistan needs to remain vigilant and determined to ensure that terrorism and extremism will not succeed.
EU policy is to stay constructively engaged with Pakistan. Key objectives of our engagement are to promote regional and internal stability, to encourage democratisation and to support Pakistan in consolidating its position as a moderate Muslim state. I am pleased to inform Parliament that, on 24 May, we held the first Joint Commission under the third generation Cooperation Agreement in Islamabad. The meeting was a useful opportunity to open new ways for cooperation with Pakistan, for instance, by setting up a sub-group on governance and human rights as a forum for a more intense dialogue in this area.
We have also significantly increased the volume of our cooperation with Pakistan to EUR 200 million over the next four years, notably in the areas of rural development and education. In so doing, our aim is to contribute towards a more prosperous and stable Pakistan.
Pakistan's political environment is currently characterised by uncertainty. The country is rife with speculation on possible electoral scenarios. One such scenario is based on President Musharraf's announced plan to get himself re-elected by the sitting assemblies in advance of the parliamentary elections. Another is a possible arrangement between the President and the opposition parties which could result in early parliamentary elections and Musharraf's possible re-election by the new assemblies.
As Pakistan approaches crucial parliamentary elections later this year, I believe it is necessary to continue to place emphasis on the importance of strengthening democratic institutions and building a more inclusive political process. As you are aware, Pakistan is a priority country for a possible EU Election Observation Mission. I will carefully assess the findings of the exploratory mission sent last month and will then take a decision on whether to deploy a mission in due course.
I think there are serious concerns about the way the electoral rolls have been prepared. Several million voters appear to be missing from the list and serious action should be taken urgently to rectify this.
In conclusion, we need to assess carefully whether it would be advisable to deploy an Election Observation Mission in a context in which there are some serious concerns, which I highlighted, about the conditions for democratic elections, and we need to keep developments under review in the coming weeks and months.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I have been a critic of Pakistan's government for some time. From the toleration of nuclear proliferation by A. Q. Kahn, to the appalling treatment of religious minorities. I have also been sceptical at times as to the real determination of President Musharraf, ostensibly our ally in the war on terrorism, to really stamp out radical Islamist Jahadis and stop youngsters, including EU citizens, being educated in the hardline Deobandi madrassas.
We now witness the bloody storming of the Red Mosque, where armed Islamists were holed up with women and children. Musharraf stated the militants were linked to al-Qa'ida. So why was this matter allowed to fester since January as the security forces ignored the illegal occupation of land, the stockpiling of weapons and the abduction of women into the mosque complex? Was this in order to engineer a bloody showdown? Or to demonstrate the risk posed by extremists and prove the President's anti-terrorist stance to the West, which has been more critical recently, with claims now that the all-powerful Pakistani Military Interservices Intelligence Agency has been secretly helping Taliban forces regroup in the border areas with Afghanistan?
It is also alleged that Abdul Aziz, the cleric leading the Red Mosque militants, had family links to the ISI. For sure this crisis is a welcome distraction for President Musharraf, under pressure now for dismissing his Chief Justice, attempting to justify five more years in power and keen, of course, to retain the pervasive influence of the Pakistani army.
The EU should rightly fear instability in an Islamic state with nuclear weapons, and I now call on President Musharraf to allow two former civilian secular Prime Ministers to return from exile and campaign in democratic elections against dangerous extremists and help build a tolerant and democratic country that can survive President Musharraf.
Robert Evans
on behalf of the Group PSE. - This is an important and timely debate. It is interesting that there will be three UK speakers, but that reflects the communities we represent. We know that across Europe many people are concerned about the situation in Pakistan and the uncertainty that surrounds President Musharraf at the moment - his future - and we recognise that is linked very much to the future of his country.
I do not intend to be as critical as Dr Tannock, but the motion for a resolution we have put down is expressed in a spirit of concern, because many of us have visited the country - we have met the President both here and in Pakistan - and we wish Pakistan well. We recognise the very real challenges that Pakistan faces, not least in the very hard task of facing terrorism on its own territory. We respect the international role they have played in the fight against global terrorism. We give them credit for what they have done already and we pledge support for future efforts.
However, the fight against terrorism cannot be used as a smokescreen to cover malpractice or wrongdoing. The Commissioner spoke about the serious incident at the Red Mosque, as indeed did Dr Tannock, who also referred to the suspension of Chief Justice Chaudhry and what followed on from that.
I want to pick up on the elections, which the Commissioner and Mr Lobo Antunes both spoke about. The Council representative said that we support steps to sustainable democracy - and of course we do. I recognise and welcome the Commissioner's commitment to a subgroup on governance and human rights for Pakistan.
I want today to urge President Musharraf to ensure that these forthcoming elections not only take place but that they do so in an environment that will be conducive to ensuring that a clean bill of health can be given to them by any international observer mission, whether it is one sent by the European Union or anyone else. This is vital for the credibility of any president of Pakistan, or any government or, indeed, any government anywhere.
Specifically, I hope that the preparations for those elections ensure that they are conducted properly, and that includes allowing more women to stand for election. As the Commissioner said, the electoral roll must not just be above scrutiny, it must be so that people do not feel that they have been left out.
We need a free and open press in an election, where journalists feel safe to say and write what they want. I hope that in the interim period, whilst the election is taking place, the interim government will be genuinely neutral.
Pakistan is a large country with a proud people and a far too troubled history. I am sure I speak for all in this Parliament when I say that the European Parliament stands ready to do all it can to support Pakistan in difficult times to allow it to grow and support it as fully functioning and peaceful democracy.
Sajjad Karim
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - The unfolding and tragic events at the Red Mosque in Islamabad show that Pakistan faces a clear and present threat from extremist ideology. They are a danger to the majority of moderate Pakistani people and to NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan. The knock-on effect that these events have had in Peshawar, Balochistan, Waziristan and Bajor illustrates the footholds that the extremists now have across many parts of the country.
Yet the popular condemnation by the majority of Pakistanis of the violence of the militants shows that extremism remains a fringe minority activity in Pakistan. It is this majority moderate core that the Government must embrace if it is to develop a broad-based political consensus.
The EU's relationship with Pakistan is based on a commitment to democracy, peace and stability, trade and development and respect for human rights. This year, the Council and Commission have taken significant steps towards strengthening that relationship and we must continue to exert our influence as a key donor in the region to improve the lives of the Pakistani people.
The EU must continue to support health and education projects in Pakistan so that the poorest people will have a genuine alternative to the madrassas. We must insist that the Government respect the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the human rights of the Pakistani people as the country moves forward to democratic elections. We must condemn all attempts to stamp out free speech and media freedom and we must stand in solidarity with the entire legal profession of Pakistan when we deplore the suspension of Chief Justice Chaudhry.
Ultimately, the European Union must send a clear message to the President that the transition to civilian rule through free and fair elections is ...
(The President cut the speaker off)
President
I have received six motions for resolutions

submitted in accordance with Article 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 12 July 2007.
Written statement (Rule 142)
Neena Gill
in writing. - I am deeply concerned that Pakistan's fragile democracy is in peril. The dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and resulting media clampdown does not bode well for having free and fair elections. There are many reports of official and unofficial acts of intimidation against members of the legal community and abuse of the Anti-Terrorist Act to persecute political opponents.
I have been informed by Pakistanis that moderate political parties, journalists and civil society are being marginalised, whilst the extremist groups are being empowered to have a greater influence over its society.
I very much regret that recent unrest has seen the loss of civilian lives and would urge President Musharraf to ensure that the Pakistani authorities fully respect human rights. Furthermore, I would request the President to abide by the assurances that he gave to the EP Delegation during the December 2006 visit to Pakistan, about the transition to civilian rule and to agreement on building up democratic institutions and most importantly the assurances he gave us on media freedom. I would like to call on the Council and the Commission to make a strong representation to Pakistan on restoration of democracy and respect of human rights.


Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), cluster bombs and conventional weapons (debate)
President
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the conference for examining the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), which will take place in 2006.
Paula Lehtomäki
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, issues relating to weapons of mass destruction and arms control have in recent years been central to the European Union's Foreign and Security Policy. Multilateral action on arms control and disarmament has nevertheless had to face enormous challenges in previous years, and the results achieved have been modest. There is an urgent need to alter this trend.
The Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is currently taking place in Geneva. Both this conference and the Sixth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention to be held in late November and early December are an opportunity to show that the international community is able effectively to respond to the challenges of arms control and disarmament today.
The civilian population is all too often the victim of the use of weapons covered under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The clearance of explosive remnants of war is an ever-growing burden for the international community. The universalisation of Protocol V to the CCW on Explosive Remnants of War and its effective implementation mean that we all have to make an effort. The European Union welcomed the entry into force of the Protocol at the Review Conference.
The Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War was drafted in response to the humanitarian threat caused by unexploded ordnance, including cluster bombs, to civilian populations in the aftermath of a war.
The recent events in southern Lebanon bring to mind the dangers caused to the civilian population by explosive remnants of war, especially cluster bombs, and the difficulty and expense of clearing them. This problem has to be addressed without delay. Therefore, the EU has proposed that the work of the CCW Group of Governmental Experts should be continued in 2007. The Group's current mandate includes the development of preventative measures to improve the design of certain types of munitions, with a view to minimising their risk to humanity. In addition, several EU Member States have individually pledged to start negotiations on a legally binding protocol which would respond to the risks to humanity arising from cluster bombs. The EU Member States, however, do not have a shared view on how to deal with the rather restricted area of cluster bombs within the framework of the CCW.
This morning at the Review Conference, it was agreed that the Union's position on cluster bombs would be endorsed, and the decision was taken to propose the establishment of a think-tank of experts, whose purpose would be to prepare recommendations for future action to deal with cluster bombs within the CCW framework.
In the course of the five years of negotiations on anti-vehicle landmines, the EU has consistently made mention of the fact that our objective is a legally binding protocol which endorses international humanitarian law and brings added value to it. Agreement on the protocol at the Review Conference, however, seems unlikely.
For more than 30 years now, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention has served as the normative and legal cornerstone of biological disarmament and non-proliferation. Today, biosciences are one of the most rapidly evolving branches of science, with infinite potential for both good and bad. The BTWC has to be capable of being adjusted to scientific developments and responding to any possible challenges that go with them. The Review Conferences are an opportunity for this.
The European Union has made thorough preparations for the Sixth Review Conference of the BTWC, in accordance with the objectives of the EU Strategy Against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. These objectives include, in particular, making the BTWC apply worldwide, promoting the national implementation of, and compliance with, the Convention at national level, and reinforcement of the Convention.
In February this year, the Council adopted a common position on the Sixth Review Conference. The Union's position is a balance between a realistic and an ambitious approach, nevertheless insisting on a comprehensive review of the Convention and practical improvements for its implementation. As an add-on to the common position, the Union has drafted thematic working documents on several topics.
In addition to joint action, the EU agreed on an Action Plan on the BTWC. In it, Member States committed to taking measures to strengthen the Convention, such as an announcement of any confidence-building measures that have been taken. These concrete measures will make the main aims of the EU's common position on the Review Conference of the BTWC more plausible.
The Third Review Conference of the CCW has a good, though not perhaps optimal, chance of success. We hope for a successful outcome, however. The Sixth Review Conference of the BTWC also stands every chance of a successful outcome.
Margot Wallström
Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, weapons of mass destruction are potentially the greatest threat to European security and, in terms of the ability to inflict mass casualties, the weapons of most concern are clearly nuclear and biological.
While we all carry with us the collective memory of the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are no equivalent common images for biological weapons. Mass death from biological agents, or diseases like the plague, appear by contrast to be part of 'ancient history' or science fiction.
We must hope that it stays that way, but we cannot be complacent. Consider the following. Firstly, unlike nuclear weapons, biological weapons are not dependent on limited supplies of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. The rapid development and dissemination of biosciences is bringing weapons capabilities within reach of those who could do us harm. The danger that humans, animals or plants might be attacked by biological agents is a real one.
Secondly, official reports suggest that terrorists are seeking bio-weapons. If terrorists were to start biological attacks across Europe, many lives would be at risk and our lifestyle could change dramatically.
Thirdly, biological weapons have been used in the recent past. The anthrax attacks in the United States in late 2001 killed few people but caused significant, wider social and political disruption, and the perpetrators remain at large.
How protected are we today? All use and possession of biological weapons has been prohibited since the Biological Weapons Convention came into force in 1975. However, this Convention is the weakest of the regimes addressing weapons of mass destruction. It has no provision for verification of compliance or implementation, and, unlike the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention, there is no central institution with oversight. Furthermore, there are fewer parties to the Convention than to either of those two treaties.
Our security would be enhanced, therefore, if the effectiveness of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention could be strengthened and its implementation improved. State parties should be encouraged to address these weaknesses at the forthcoming review conference later this month.
Good security starts at home. My colleague, Commissioner Frattini, is well aware of the need for action. The Commission is examining potential responses through a common framework approach. National responses to biological threats are clearly insufficient. Alongside the work on strengthening public health and medical surveillance and response, we will be issuing a Green Paper on European bio-preparedness in spring 2007.
Disaster and disease do not respect borders. The issue of bio-threats is one where internal and external policies are inextricably linked. Much can be achieved through better international collaboration and coordination. We will aim to share best practice on bio-preparedness: by helping to protect others, we will better protect ourselves.
I would also like to say a few words on a very different type of deadly weapon. Unexploded cluster ammunition represents a threat to human security and sustainable development. Such munitions kill innocent people every day and 30% of those killed are children. They represent major challenges, both politically and to daily life in former war zones.
A review conference is currently under way. It will see Protocol V to the convention, on 'Explosive Remnants of War' - i.e. failed explosive ordnance, ammunition or sub-munitions from cluster bombs, - enter into force. The implementation of this protocol, intended to eradicate the threat that such legacies of war pose to populations, will be a welcome step forward.
The events in Lebanon this summer highlighted the issue, particularly in view of the high failure rate of the cluster sub-munitions employed. Helping Lebanon in the difficult task of clearing these deadly remnants of war is important and we have contributed some EUR 5 million to the task. We also support the need to focus more attention on strengthening and ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law in this area.
Commission assistance and cooperation in humanitarian disarmament - that is to say mine action, clearing the explosive remnants of war and fighting the illicit spread of small arms - all have a positive impact on improving human security. They contribute to the sustainability of our development policies. We are grateful for the support of the European Parliament in these efforts.
Elizabeth Lynne
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, with the Conventional Weapons Convention taking place this week and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention next week, it is important that the EU's voice is heard.
One main area that concerns me - the Commissioner talked about it - is the use of cluster bombs. We have seen the widespread use in recent conflicts: Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, to name but a few. Because they are not covered by the 1997 Treaty on Landmines they are used with impunity, but they still have the same devastating effect, with civilians being killed or maimed for years to come.
According to the report 'Fatal Footprint', published this month by Handicap International, the Israeli defence force delivered at least four million bomblets into Lebanon between July and August this year. Worldwide, civilians constitute 98% of all recorded cluster bomb casualties. That is one of the reasons I call on the Council and the Commission to endorse the growing movement for change within the international community and the moves by countries, amongst them Belgium and Norway, to establish national legislation to ban cluster munitions from their territories and armed forces. I would also like to applaud the Red Cross for its campaign and call for a ban on the use of cluster bombs, for stockpiles to be destroyed and for clearance programmes to be stepped up.
As far as biological and toxic weapons are concerned, we must put more pressure on the United States Government, which has refused to countenance a legally binding verification protocol. That is damaging the future of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and its credibility. We must also make sure that a permanent secretariat is set up to oversee the Convention's implementation.
Angelika Beer
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Wallström, ladies and gentlemen, death comes in the aftermath of war, and, rather than these cluster bombs falling from the heavens on their own, we have to be aware that they are dropped by Europe's allies and that those same allies continue to manufacture and export them.
You say that cluster bombs and unexploded munitions represent a challenge to former war zones, and that is where I have to contradict you; on the contrary, they are not a challenge to former war zones, but rather a challenge to the European Union, which must make sure that none of its Member States produces, exports or uses such weapons, and which must no longer permit its allies to do so in the way that the Americans, or the Israelis in the most recent war, have done.
It was with this in mind and considering the European Union's inability to take action that we, a fortnight ago, wrote a letter to the Finnish Presidency - and when I say 'we' I mean not 'we Greens' but rather the coordinators of the conservatives, the socialists, the liberals and I myself - with an urgent appeal for a European position in favour of an outright ban to be tabled at this conference, which represents an historic opportunity for the prohibition of cluster munitions.
You made it plain to this House that you were either unwilling or unable to do so. You say you are going to set up a working party; well, I am sure you are familiar with the saying that, setting up a working party is what you do when you do not know what to do next. It is also the cynical way to go about things when one bears in mind the fact that, day in and day out, the lives of civilians, police officers and UN troops sent by us to crisis-hit regions are being put at risk by what is left of these weapons.
I would therefore like, once more, to urge you in strong terms to now seize the initiative and - since you are able to do so - ensure that the national parliaments of the EU's Member States describe these cluster munitions as what they actually are, namely as a form of weaponry worthy of being outlawed and one that Europeans must renounce once and for all, refusing to use them or accept their use in any war whatever.
Vittorio Agnoletto
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my group is of course in favour of a general, worldwide ban on the production and use of biological weapons and on trade in them, and we hope that the forthcoming Geneva Conference will decide to strengthen the relevant international conventions. I am pleased to note that the European Union is in the forefront on these issues, and I hope that the Commission will do everything humanly possible to achieve a worldwide ban on these horrific weapons.
We have to acknowledge the fact, however, that the main stumbling block to achieving such a ban has a name that we all know: George W. Bush. The President of the United States is personally responsible for the US political boycott of the Geneva negotiations. He has, in fact, decided to pull out of the talks. Instead, the United States has made the build-up of their biological arsenal and the use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium a strong point in their aggressive and unacceptable military policy. Similarly, they have neither ratified the Mine Ban Convention nor signed the Third Protocol to the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), and they have also revived the Star Wars programme.
This attitude by the United States is a threat to world security. The European Union needs to overcome its inertia and make putting pressure on the United States a key point in the Geneva negotiations.
Gerard Batten
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, Mrs Lehtomäki spoke of the European Union's action plan in relation to the Review Conference of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. Yet again, the European Union falsely assumes the attributes of a political state empowered to determine policy on what are military and defence measures, which are the proper responsibility of sovereign nations.
The EU has never had to militarily defend its citizens and let us hope that it never has to, for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, countries like mine, Great Britain, which are serious military powers, have to discharge that responsibility. Cluster bombs do indeed need greater international regulation, especially in regard to the so-called dumb bombs, which have no self-destruct mechanism. Britain is also a leading power in research into defence against biological and toxin weapons, and given the current terrorist threat by fundamentalist Islam, Britain has to maintain its independence and freedom of action in this sphere.
Philip Claeys
(NL) Mr President, the manufacture and use of biological weapons used to be the preserve of states. These days, progress in biotechnology is such that ever fewer resources are needed to produce dangerous viruses, bacteria and poisons, and the consequence of this is that terrorist organisations, too, can resort to biological warfare.
In March of this year, Interpol pointed out that there are serious indications that al-Qaeda is preparing to commit acts of biological terrorism. The scale of the destruction that could result in that way far outstrips that of the attacks in New York, Madrid and London. It is impossible to conclude agreements with terrorists in the same way as states do with one another. It is of vital importance that police forces be further trained in order to prevent and control biological terror. Some legislation may well need to be adapted in order to make it possible to check sensitive scientific research.
There is still a need to give attention to the exchange of information between intelligence services within the European Union, but also with our partners in the United States, Russia and in all other nations that want to discharge their responsibilities in the fight against terrorism.
Achille Occhetto
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament wholeheartedly supports this draft resolution, because it sees it as a decisive step in the strategy to oppose the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that was adopted by Europe in December 2003, and also because it makes reducing the biological weapons threat a top priority. At the same time, another important initiative is that we are calling on all countries that have not yet done so to abide by the legislation banning biological weapons, not least in order to achieve that universality that is an integral and binding part of international law.
Within this basic framework, there are in any case measures designed to ensure that the Convention is effectively implemented, although in the most recent analysis the United States failed to comply with these measures. I should also like to stress the importance of the appeal made in the resolution to finalise a specific Protocol 6 unequivocally banning the manufacture and use of cluster bombs, despicable weapons even used in humanitarian wars to get round the Mine Ban Convention.
At the same time, Europe needs to show that there is a direct link between trends towards proliferation, which must be strenuously repressed, and the failure to disarm. The West will have greater moral authority to oppose the proliferation of any kind of weapon if: 1) the United States stops opposing the adoption of inspection measures and the banning of cluster bombs; and 2) the disarmament process is resumed even within the nuclear club. What has happened today is therefore an important step, but it is merely the first on the long road towards a ban on all weapons of mass destruction.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
(ES) Mr President, like so many other instruments that regulate arms at world level, the existence of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention is a necessary, though not sufficient, tool in the fight against human irrationality.
There is therefore only one acceptable option for the sixth review conference which is to begin on 20 November: to strengthen that instrument, particularly with a view to developing genuine verification mechanisms, and to promote its universal application.
Furthermore, with regard to cluster bombs, I can only vigorously support the call for the Convention on Inhuman Weapons to be provided with a sixth protocol. In my view, it should even be provided with a specific and complete treaty, which unambiguously prohibits the production, storage, transfer and use of this kind of weapon, as in the case of anti-personnel mines.
In view of the indiscriminate nature of cluster bombs and the enormous impact they have on the civilian population, the use of those weapons must no longer be tolerated in any way. The case of Lebanon, which is currently under investigation, is just one example of many that illustrate the reason for this.
Ana Maria Gomes
(PT) In recent years we have witnessed the erosion of the most important legal instruments for combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention is no exception. We are more vulnerable than ever to devastating terrorist attacks.
The main ideas contained in this resolution, on which notable consensus has been reached across all political groups in Parliament, are decades old and applicable to other conventions, too. These ideas can be summed up under three headings: universalisation, application and verification. The notorious cluster bombs and anti-personnel mines must be combated. These immoral arms must also be outlawed. These bombs spread death indiscriminately and the fact that they have a low rate of immediate explosion means that they continue to kill innocent people many years after conflicts have ended.
The recent war in Lebanon, in which Israel left the country mined with thousands of cluster bombs, should give us the impetus to ban, once and for all, the manufacture and use of all kinds of cluster bomb, as we have done with anti-personnel mines. Perhaps merely adding a new protocol to the existing Convention against certain conventional weapons is not enough; perhaps the time has come for a specific convention. This does not matter, provided the EU takes action and the human race joins forces to eradicate these heinous weapons.
Paula Lehtomäki
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Union and the Council are very concerned that people in conflict zones are injured or die when the conflict itself has ended. This is patently clear in the case of Lebanon today, where unexploded bombs are a real problem for the civilian population.
The Presidency is pleased that the Protocol relating to unexploded ordnance has entered into force. In the future we will be working to ensure that the harm caused to the civilian population by munitions remains minimal. As for international cooperation on cluster bombs from here on, we will continue our efforts to find a common position in the European Union and make headway on this.
Finally, I wish to say that Mrs Beer and her colleagues will be receiving an answer to their letter to the Presidency in the very near future.
Margot Wallström
Vice-president of the Commission. Mr President, the informed debate that has taken place on these issues is one more strand in the argument against war and another argument for prevention and hopefully being able to avoid the use of these weapons.
As you know, under the common foreign and security policy, these are not areas in which the Commission takes the lead. However, we are part of the solution when dealing with the aftermath of war. The human suffering, unexploded munitions and humanitarian problems which result from wars around the world are a challenge for us.
The Commission will of course continue to support the clearance of such weapons, working with the international community and NGOs. The war in Lebanon lasted a few days, but the human suffering will continue for many years.
President
In accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure, I have received six motions for resolutions.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday.