Interoperability of mobile chargers (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission (B6-0225/2009) by Mr Cappato, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, on the interoperability of mobile phone chargers.
Marco Cappato
author. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that we are discussing is very clear and straightforward: there are approximately 500 million mobile telephones in use in Europe and 30 different types of charger. The technical reason for this difference: there is none. There is no technical reason. It is merely a source of unfair speculation on the part of producers, on the one hand, and a creator of obvious environmental damage, on the other, since, as a result of this inescapable trap that consumers are caught in, hundreds of millions of phone chargers are being dispersed into the environment every two to three years.
The European Commission - Commissioner Verheugen - has already responded very promptly to our question, which asked for action to be taken to standardise this equipment, and so today we are here to ask the Commissioner what point we are at. One possible route is self-regulation, by which I mean that the producers of mobile phones and hence of chargers can agree very swiftly to impose a standard that puts an end to this truly ridiculous and damaging situation.
We would therefore say straight away, Commissioner Verheugen, that, whatever guarantee of self-regulation producers wish to give, we will have to make it very clear that we will intervene with regulation should this response be insufficient, and that this regulation should not relate solely to mobile phones and mobile phone chargers, but also to other digital devices for which the same problem exists. In this way Europe could also - I have finished, Madam President - impose standards that could ultimately be imposed as international standards, too. This is a great opportunity concerning a technical matter, but an important one for European consumers.
Günter Verheugen
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to be able to inform the Members of the European Parliament that genuine progress has been made in harmonising mobile phone chargers in Europe.
However, I would first like to thank Mr Cappato and Mr Manders for the commitment which they have brought to this problem, which is a daily reality for the citizens of Europe.
I fully agree with them that we must put an end to the ever-growing number of chargers and that it must in future be possible to charge mobile phones using a single, standardised charger. The hundreds of millions of useless chargers and adapters in Europe place a ridiculous burden on the environment and, at the same time, are an expensive irritation for consumers. Nowadays, anyone who changes their mobile phone generally needs a completely different charger. Even different models from the same manufacturer do not use a standardised charger.
This is not a new issue. However, it is important to realise that charging a mobile phone is not like filling a car with petrol; it is a technically more complex issue. A few years ago, the technology had not yet reached a level where complete harmonisation was possible, in particular because of safety risks. Mobile phones could overheat or even explode during the charging process.
In the meantime, these difficulties have been overcome and there are no technical reasons which would prevent harmonisation.
Therefore, I have taken specific steps to encourage the industry to bring a standard charger onto the market.
I am confident that the industry will act quickly. However, in our role as a European institution we must stay on the ball. We should under no circumstances exclude the possibility of introducing legal regulations. As you perhaps already know, at their most recent congress in Barcelona the network operators announced that from 2012 onwards it will be possible to charge the majority of the new mobile phones that they sell with a single standardised charger.
This is good, but it does not go far enough. The Commission would like to see complete harmonisation on the basis of a uniform standard and a binding undertaking from the industry to do this. The Commission expects the industry to produce a binding agreement in the form of a memorandum by the end of April. This memorandum should be signed by the major manufacturers of mobile phones and should ensure that every charger is capable of charging every mobile phone and that every mobile phone can be charged by every charger.
The Commission will not hesitate to make a legislative proposal if the industry does not introduce a voluntary agreement.
I expect that the problem will automatically be resolved for other devices, such as digital cameras and MP3 players, once we have made the breakthrough with mobile phones. If that should not be the case, then legal intervention may also be required here.
The Commission continues to count on the valuable support of the European Parliament to resolve this irritating problem once and for all.
Paul Rübig
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we can celebrate the European day of the mobile phone, because together with the Commission and the Council we have today adopted the 'Roaming Regulation II'. We have come to a good conclusion which will result in a reduction in the costs of using mobile phones. This is a good thing in an economic crisis. We are also planning a cost reduction programme for the chargers, which is very important for the citizens of Europe.
Chargers should have a label showing their efficiency class, in a similar way to fridges, so that you can see how much electricity they use. It is also important for us to introduce a legal requirement for an automatic cut-off, so that the charger automatically switches off when the device is charged. In addition, we should ask the standards institutes to produce proposals which will make this possible.
I believe that the schedule presented here by the Commission is a good one, as it requires the industry to come to a voluntary agreement by April or be subject to technical legislation. Of course, this is not as easy as it seems. On the one hand, we have the connection between the charger and the mobile phone. It will be straightforward to establish a technical standard for this. However, on the other hand the wall socket presents a problem that we are familiar with from European standards. In this case we should also develop proposals to find a solution to this problem, which concerns not only Europe but also the rest of the world. Perhaps we could involve the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) in order to find a worldwide solution.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
The subject which we are discussing will actually affect a large number of consumers at European Union level. I must also mention that 2009, the year of creativity and innovation, is a year in which we can make a step forward towards this standardisation, if this agreement is signed among mobile phone manufacturers, albeit on a voluntary basis for the time being.
I think that we need above all a common technical standard. I also believe that it is important for European institutions which deal with standardisation to also be involved so that proper research can be applied at market level.
I think that a consumer information campaign is important too because it is not sufficient for us just to have this labelling on mobile phones about their energy efficiency. I also believe that it is important for a customer information campaign to be launched about the type of chargers for mobile phones.
2012 is not far away. I think that if manufacturers really invest in this new type of unique charger there will be sufficient time to meet the 2012 deadline.
However, I want to mention that the research has actually resulted in some applications already appearing on the market: there are chargers available which can be used from close proximity to charge two or three sets. Even if the sets are different makes and models, they can be charged simultaneously.
This is why we need to invest more in research, especially, in my view, in research dedicated to the information and communications technologies sector. Progress is being made. In the Seventh Framework Programme for Research we have large sums of money allocated. It appears, however, that for a fairly narrow field such as mobile phone chargers, enough has not been done. This is why I think that the agreement between manufacturers is a step forward, but it must also be accompanied by some common standards.
Toine Manders
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Madam President, we are today discussing a subject that is of special interest to consumers, namely the standard connection for mobile phone chargers. As a Liberal, I am, of course, in favour of allowing the internal market to work and of the minimum possible amount of government intervention in the market. That said, consumers must also have choices. At the moment, consumers buying a new phone have no choice at all. The charger must automatically be bought with the phone, and this frequently gives rise to great annoyance amongst consumers. What is more, research shows that consumers spend EUR 300 million a year on new chargers because they are automatically included with the purchase of new phones. The result of this is that there, too, the environment is also burdened to the tune of EUR 300 million a year, and that is without mentioning the waste of energy that these cheap chargers cause, as they are often left in the socket even after the phone itself has been disconnected, where they continue to consume energy.
My colleague, Mr Cappato, and I have been calling for years for the introduction of a European standard and I would very much like to compliment the Commissioner for the manner in which he has regulated this by flirting a little with the industry whilst also threatening it, saying to it, 'You come up with a solution or, if not, we will introduce binding legislation'. I would like to congratulate him even more on that approach, as, being a Liberal, I am against mandatory regulation where coaxing can be used instead. Coaxing means that people prefer to do something because they see the benefit of it and I think that the Commissioner has achieved exceptional success in this.
I have told the following little joke a few times before: when I met my wife 35 years ago, I coaxed her into going out with me. If I had forced her, she would probably not have seen the added value we have now and the idea would therefore not have lasted this long. I believe that this example also applies to the industry, as, if the industry has to resolve the issue itself, it will make a better job of it than if the solution is laid down by politicians.
I therefore think that this is an excellent solution. I hope that, in time, you will manage not only to bring in a standard for phone chargers but also for more items of electrical equipment, as the same irritation applies to those other electrical appliances. If a family goes away for a weekend, it might take 30 chargers with it. There are always people, including in this House today, for instance, who have to ask whether anyone has a charger they can borrow as they have forgotten their own. You then need to find a specific charger of a specific make and model. My compliments, again, Commissioner. I hope that this really happens in 2012 and I hope that you act strongly if the industry does not live up to its commitments, as that is very important. You have to keep the big stick in reserve, but preferably reach a solution through coaxing and self-regulation. You have succeeded in that, and you have my congratulations.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Madam President, I have a further question for Commissioner Verheugen. USB 2 ports can transfer not only energy but also data. Would this not be an alternative solution?
Günter Verheugen
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I had already noted that, Mr Rübig. I wanted to say to you that that is why I am so relaxed about this issue, because I do not believe that we are making life unnecessarily difficult for the industry, as the USB standard is already in place. All my experts tell me that the existing standard can be used for all hand-held devices. You cannot use it at the same time for desktop PCs and mobile phones, but it is possible for all hand-held devices.
This is also my answer to Mrs Ţicău. The standard you are asking about is in fact already in existence. In addition, I should tell you, Mrs Ţicău, that intensive work is already underway into the issue of energy consumption and the effect of chargers of this kind on the environment. We will look into this question at the latest when we start work on implementing the directive concerning products that use energy, for which we have presented you with a new proposal.
My final remark is directed once again at Mr Rübig. I think the idea of an automatic cut-off is a very good one and it applies not only to chargers. I think this is a subject which could be taken much further. The Commission is already working on it and will report back to you on the results.
President
The debate is closed.


Sport, specifically concerning players' agents (debate)
President
The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Doris Pack, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on sport, specifically concerning players' agents - B7-0308/2010).
Doris Pack
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in Mr Belet's report on professional football, the European Parliament already stated that it is in favour of better regulation of the activities of sports agents, particularly players' agents, and on that occasion, we called for an appropriate directive. Now, we once again find ourselves facing that issue.
The legal situation is unclear. Since players' agents often work across borders, national legislation, even where it exists in the first place, is not a suitable method of controlling these activities. In turn, sports federations have limited legal scope of action. As non-state actors, they are not entitled to lay down extensive regulations. In 2000, FIFA, for example, had to relax its licensing procedure for agents for this very reason.
In 2009, the Commission published a study which pointed, in particular, to worrying connections between players' agents and criminal activities. There was talk of money laundering, bribery, betting and tax fraud, amongst others practices. Such connections damage the integrity of the sport and are inconsistent with its social role. In addition, the study published by the Commission has found that the financial flows from players' transfers usually lack transparency, which goes to explain the vulnerability of this system to the criminal machinations I have just mentioned. There is a particular risk, in the case of the agencying of young players, of the agent exploiting the youth and inexperience of players in, say, Africa, promising them a future in European professional football and then dropping them when no club can be found for them, leaving them stranded in Europe as illegal immigrants, without work or support.
Against this background, we need a European legislative initiative. That would enable us to regulate this issue uniformly across the EU, to plug the legal loopholes and to support sports federations in their efforts towards orderly and transparent agencying of players. In that respect, we should make it our particular aim, as we have requested in our motion, to ban commission payments for agents transferring underage players, so that we can eliminate every financial incentive for these kinds of unfair transactions, especially those involving underage players. I hope that we will get the support of tomorrow's plenary for our motion today and, above all, that it will encourage the Commission to get to work on this issue.
Androulla Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me first of all thank Ms Pack for presenting this oral question on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education.
I am fully aware of the political importance of this issue. I would recall that the Commission has now published the results of the independent study on sports agents. The study provides a comprehensive analysis of the issue at stake. We have learned, for instance, that around 6 000 agents are active across the Member States in all disciplines. However, 95% of them are active in only four sports: athletics, basketball, football and rugby. And within this group, football clearly predominates.
The study also tells us that only a limited number of Member States regulate agents through a specific law. Most countries simply rely on general provisions of either labour law or contract law. Some international sports federations have also adopted regulations on agents, notably in the disciplines that I just mentioned: athletics, basketball, football and rugby.
Although the existing public and private regulations may conflict with each other and create legal uncertainty, the findings of the study show that few obstacles exist to the free provision of agents' activities across the EU. However, the study highlights a number of dubious practices related to agents' activities: for instance, the payment of secret commissions, the exploitation of young players, etc. We must address such problems to preserve the integrity and fairness of sports competitions.
The sports movement has been trying to tackle these problems for some time. This is why a number of governing bodies have adopted measures to regulate the activities of agents. The rules put in place by sports bodies may have an advantage: sporting sanctions are sometimes the best way to deter unscrupulous actors in the market, be they agents, clubs or players. But sporting authorities do not have the power to investigate and punish acts which all Member States consider to be crimes: corruption, money laundering, tax evasion and illegal immigration. The sports movement is looking for assistance from the European institutions to tackle the challenges posed by agents.
The Commission has an important role to play. We can help to develop the common principles and standards that might serve as a minimum set of rules for countries and sports federations across Europe. We are now assessing which type of action at EU level would be most appropriate. We have several options in mind but, to finally decide what action we should take, we will certainly need further deliberations and consultations.
Ivo Belet
Mr President, Commissioner, I should just like to start with a reference to the Football World Cup in South Africa, which is again showing every day how great sport can be, how great it is for a country, a continent, and particularly the society there. This makes it all the more important for us to preserve sport from the criminal excrescences to which Mrs Pack has already referred, or to make vigorous efforts to tackle these excrescences.
To quote verbatim from the study you have just mentioned, the results of which are now known, 'Sport is increasingly affected by organised crime'. This is sad but true. We are talking about human trafficking, sometimes of young children, and also about all kinds of financial malpractice. It is clear that the sports federations themselves have neither the ability nor the power to tackle this malpractice efficiently. A European initiative is indeed required, therefore.
We already have various legislative instruments at our disposal - in the treaty and in certain directives - to enable us to take action. I should like to mention a couple of proposals for action. Firstly, we could set to work on strict criteria applicable to all sports agents throughout the Union. The best way to bring about such a situation is via licensing systems for clubs and via a compulsory register for players' agents. The sports federations can impose this, but the European Union can certainly be a driving force in this connection. For example, the EU can coordinate activities among the various national supervisory authorities.
A second measure we could take would be to introduce absolute transparency into the financial flows in circulation in the world of players' agents, as these are the root of most evil at present. We have no knowledge of these shady financial flows, which means that they can continue to use top-class sport for money laundering, on the one hand, and bribery on the other.
A third proposal - which Mrs Pack has already discussed - concerns a ban on remuneration for players' agents who seek to make money from the transfer of underage players. We should definitely take action on this. We have sufficient instruments at our disposal not only to exert pressure on the professional sports federations to push this through but also to take our own initiatives.
Back in 2007, by a very large majority, this House called on the Commission to take the initiative in the fight against the excrescences in the world of sports agents. This study makes a number of specific suggestions. Although good, they are clearly inadequate. We are pleased to hear you say here that you do indeed intend to move things up a gear. There have been calls for this even within the sector itself; from the European association of players' agents. We have had a great deal of contact with them, and they themselves are pushing for the European Union to swing into action to root out the rotten apples. I propose that we respond to their calls in the interests of sport and of its extremely important social role.
Mary Honeyball
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, we are indeed fortunate, I suppose, to be talking about this at the time of the World Cup because what the World Cup illustrates more than almost any other sporting event is just how important sport is to people; just how many millions and millions of people watch football and how much pleasure and passion is invested in it.
Because of this, it is so important that we actually make sure that the game of football and other sports are regulated properly and that we do now take the action which has been discussed for so long about players' agents. We are, unfortunately, as has been mentioned, seeing some very serious things going on: abuse, money laundering, corruption, exploitation of underage players; things which are serious crimes against which we really must take the action which we have been planning for so long. What better time to be doing that than now, when the whole world it seems is consumed by football?
Emma McClarkin
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I fully support efforts to make the activities of sports agents, mainly in football, more transparent and I believe that the EU should be supporting the various sporting governing bodies to ensure that they can do just that. We need to shine a light into the murky world where exploitation could be rife and matters such as dual representation, whereby the agent can be representing a player at the same club that is trying to sign the player, need to be looked at.
However, any legislation that comes forward to regulate this sector must be from the national sporting bodies or authorities such as FIFA and UEFA. It is really not the place of the EU to be regulating in the sporting world, especially with the global nature of this particular problem. Where we can add value to sports we should, but we should only intervene upon the request of the sporting governing bodies where we can clearly deliver value or give clarity.
Marie-Christine Vergiat
Mr President, I welcome the question raised by our President in the middle of the World Cup. The Commission study has worrying aspects, in that it exposes the risk to the ethics and reputation of sport.
If the sporting movement is to remain the main player in regulation, by relying on the thousands of charitable men and women who keep alive the sporting spirit as we love it, because is it a factor in individual development, the States should be at their side to punish attacks on public order and to punish excesses.
These excesses are found in the sports business, in which players are increasingly becoming commodities and their agents simply brokers, placing them just like commodities. Transfers command astronomical sums and the rights of minors are increasingly trampled upon.
These excesses are a cross-border phenomenon, it is money as king, crazy money, and has unfortunately been strengthened by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The leading bodies of certain sports in question, especially football, are looking for aid from European bodies. Yes, Commissioner, we need to act and, for my part, I am sorry that France has just passed legislation to the contrary.
Seán Kelly
(GA) Mr President, an hour and a half ago, the women were saying that it was late to be discussing women's issues. Now we are approaching midnight and we are discussing sporting matters.
However, at least we have the opportunity to discuss this; before Lisbon, we did not. Now we have the opportunity and it is good that we are taking it, particularly when we are talking of young people and of the activities of sports agents.
As Mrs Pack said, there are many examples of young people who are promised that they will be big stars in the future. But what happens? They are taken from their homes, from their families, from schools, and then a year or two later, they are discarded. This is what happens to the majority of them.
Now the European Union has a chance to do something about this and to lay down laws and penalties to protect young people from these agents. We should look at what is going on in different sports and in different countries, compile this information and do the best thing - particularly for young people and for sport as a whole.
Emine Bozkurt
(NL) Mr President, the profession of sports agent is one with no safeguards and little or no supervision, let alone penalties for misconduct, for example, human trafficking. The EU has carried out a study and identified abuses but, as yet, has failed to do anything about the situation. Yet something must be done. I am very concerned about the vulnerability of underage players, particularly those from developing countries, who are often victims of human trafficking. The EU has to clamp down on this.
The resolution presents specific proposals: putting a stop to remuneration for agents of underage players, enforcing more transparency in financial transactions during transfers, and more regulation by Member States given that the sports federations do not have the situation under control at present. Specific measures are required in order to tackle Wild West conditions. The Commission must ensure that enforcement and the penalising of malpractice - which, after all, is often cross-border in nature - are improved. In addition, the rights of underage players must be safeguarded effectively at all times.
Iosif Matula
(RO) I welcome the initiative suggested by Ivo Belet of setting up a standard system for protecting the interests of sports men and women who use the services of agents, which will reduce incidences of misconduct in this area relating to the lack of transparency with transfers, money laundering and human trafficking.
As I see it, we need to focus appropriate attention not only on football, but on all the other sports as well. For example, we currently have around 6 000 agents who are active in Europe, representing 30 different sports, involved in business activities with an estimated annual value of hundreds of millions of euro. In these circumstances, imposing a single code of rules for licensing players' agents will be far from an easy task.
In addition, we will have to support a clearer definition of the functions of an agent, whether as a manager of players or as an intermediary in transfers. Looking ahead ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Piotr Borys
(PL) Mr President, there is one good thing about having this debate at this late hour - our discussion is not being held during the transmission of World Cup matches, so we have time for the debate. On a serious note, however, we have the Treaty of Lisbon, which obliges us to take very serious action in a situation which is wrong and which it has not been possible to solve for years. We have before us the European Championships organised in two years' time by Poland and Ukraine, so I am extremely pleased with the decision made by Mr Belet, Mrs Pack and Mrs Vassiliou, who has been so actively involved in this, that harmonisation of legislation is needed in this area. The system is, indeed, not transparent and is burdened with decades of corruption. The trade in young players is taking on enormous proportions, and is leading to many situations where money is being shared, even after transfers have been completed and high fees paid. Transfer fees are so high that they sometimes put clubs into debt. This is why we need a new code ....
(The President cut off the speaker)
Androulla Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I believe that we all agree on the importance of sport and that it can be very enjoyable for all of us. I thank you all very much for your input and proposals which will be seriously taken into account.
There is no doubt that some EU action is desirable; sports federations do not have the powers to intervene in some of the worse cases of malpractice. Such problems now take on a transnational dimension as sport becomes more globalised.
The internationalisation of professional sport makes it difficult to adopt a national approach to problems of a systemic nature. The EU can play a coordinating role and help to ensure a harmonised approach to the issue of agents. We might, for example, use the new competence acquired by the EU for the harmonisation of criminal law. Many actors within the sports movement would certainly welcome our support.
Of course, whatever action we decide to take, we will work closely with the relevant federations and I intend to publish - as you know - a communication on sport very soon and this communication will certainly look at this issue in more detail. It would be wrong to prejudice the discussions which we need to have with you, the Parliament, as well as the sports movement itself. I am looking forward to working closely with you to take this issue forward.
President
I have received one motion for a resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Liam Aylward
in writing. - In this era of commercialisation and professionalism, agents are unavoidable aspects of the sporting landscape. The Commission Report estimates that 6 000 agents are active in the EU, generating a turnover of over EUR 200 million for the transfer of players and athletes.
Football is the only sport where agents are active in all EU Member States. Football in Europe is big business and it is essential that fair play and integrity are at the heart of the sport. The illicit trafficking and transfer of young players across borders is a worrying issue. This situation is particularly associated with football clubs and their search for talent. It is estimated that around 20 000 young Africans have been brought to Europe to play football but now live in the EU illegally because they did not secure a career as a football player. Closer cross-border regulation, monitoring and minimum harmonised standards for agents' contracts would contribute to tackling this problem and are necessary to ensure the integrity of football.
Given the cross-border dimension of this issue, I would urge the Commission to carve out an effective and strong role for itself in order to protect minors and halt the trafficking of players.


Statute of the European Ombudsman (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Anneli Jäätteenmäki on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament amending its Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom, of 9 March 1994, on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties.
Anneli Jäätteenmäki
rapporteur. - (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Diamandouros, ladies and gentlemen, first I wish to thank all parties for their excellent levels of cooperation whilst this report was being produced. It was not easy finding a solution that would satisfy everyone, and I understand that some people are still hoping for some changes, but we have achieved a unanimous result in committee. It seems appropriate to move forward from here.
There were four issues relating to the role of Ombudsman. These were access to documents, the testimonials of officials, information on criminal cases, and cooperation in the field of human rights. There was also a fifth issue in the European Ombudsman's original proposal, his or her power to intervene, but this was contentious and right at the end of the discussion the Ombudsman said that he wanted to withdraw it.
The most important amendment concerns the obligation of the EU institutions and bodies also to grant the Ombudsman access to classified information and sensitive documents, if deemed necessary for the Ombudsman to do his or her job. Up till now the institutions have had the right to refuse to disclose information. This will now be the subject of objective, and no longer subjective or arbitrary, consideration. This is an important, albeit small, step in the right direction.
The institutions supplying classified information or documents to the Ombudsman must inform the Ombudsman of their classified status. Furthermore, for the rules to be implemented, the Ombudsman may agree with the relevant institutions the operational conditions for access to classified information or other information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
The role of the European Ombudsman has become more important over the years for the European Union institutions and the citizens of Europe. With the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union will become legally binding, which will make the job of the Ombudsman even more important. In the future we will need to do more to ensure that the Ombudsman has sufficient resources, that his or her Statute reflects the current times, that he or she obtains the information needed and that officials give him or her the right information.
Under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union. The resources therefore have to be in place so that citizens do not have to wait years for decisions and can also have confidence in the fact that the Ombudsman will be in possession of all the necessary information and that officials will tell him or her what they know instead of what they want to say. Otherwise there is no rule of law, something we are so fond of talking about, even if the EU is not a state as such. We ourselves should also comply with the rule of law; only then can we expect others to.
Margot Wallström
vice-president of the Commission. - Mr President, it is now 14 years since this Parliament first adopted the European Ombudsman Statute. Much has happened since then. It is therefore normal and appropriate that the Ombudsman has taken the initiative to modify his statute, and the Commission welcomes that.
The important thing is this. The citizens must have confidence in the Ombudsman's capacity to conduct thorough and impartial inquiries in alleged cases of maladministration. So the Ombudsman needs clear, concise and efficient rules for his important work.
Right from the beginning, the Commission has followed this initiative very closely, and we have had fruitful discussions with the Ombudsman and Parliament's rapporteur, Ms Jäätteenmäki. Our respective services have also had a lot of contact and cooperation.
The Commission welcomes the general line of this report, and I want to thank the chairman, Mr Leinen, and all committee members - in particular Ms Jäätteenmäki - for their work.
From the Commission's side, we will deliver our formal opinion very shortly after Parliament requires us to do so. Today I would like to briefly summarise our main reflections. They have to do with four specific issues.
First, the hearing of witnesses; secondly, access to files; thirdly, OLAF, and fourth, cooperation in the field of human rights. I will say very shortly a few words about each of these points.
First, about the hearing of witnesses. The Commission agrees with Parliament's amendment on the hearing of witnesses, and the purpose of this provision was to recall that officials give testimony not on a personal basis, but in their official capacity.
We are conscious that the current wording could give the impression that officials might act under instructions and not give authentic and complete evidence. This has never happened, but I agree that it is important to modify the wording to avoid misunderstandings.
Secondly, on access to files, the Commission is in favour of allowing the Ombudsman to consult documents that he needs in the course of his enquiries. The Ombudsman has proposed to lift the secrecy exception for access to a file. The Commission has never used this exception, but it is important that we are very clear.
The treatment of classified information has to be carefully considered. The same goes for privacy of individuals, protection of proceedings and business secrecy. That is why the Commission welcomes Parliament's amendment that, where these kinds of documents are concerned, the Ombudsman should use rules which are strictly equivalent to those in force in the institution concerned.
With regard to sensitive information, such as data protection and business secrets, the Commission fully shares Parliament's views. This also goes for documents relating to proceedings in litigation.
This means that the Ombudsman should apply the relevant Community law when dealing with requests from third parties for access to documents obtained by the Ombudsman in the course of his inquiries.
As you know, the relevant Community law - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - is currently being updated and the Commission will take a decision in just a few weeks time.
For these reasons, the Commission agrees with the aim of the amendments on access to documents, but we think maybe a more precise wording would improve the text even more, and we will come back to that when we present our formal opinion.
The third point, on OLAF: when it comes to the transmission of information on possible criminal activities, the Commission entirely agrees with Parliament that the Ombudsman should be able to notify the European Anti-Fraud Office of any information on matters within its remit and it is not entirely clear that the proposed notion of 'competent institutional body' would cover OLAF. A slight rewording could improve the text even more.
Finally, on cooperation in the field of human rights, the current statute has proved to be a good basis for the European Ombudsman to cooperate with national ombudsmen and similar bodies in the Member States.
The Commission fully encourages this practice. It brings the European institutions closer to its citizens. With a tabled amendment, Parliament would like to widen the scope of cooperation to other institutions for the promotion and protection of human and fundamental rights.
According to Articles 302 and 303 of the Treaty, it is the Commission, as representative of the Community, which establishes all appropriate forms of cooperation with international organisations in general and with the Council of Europe in particular. This is why the Commission considers that this proposal goes beyond the mandate given to the Ombudsman by the Treaty.
This being said, the Commission would be open to an alternative wording, and I hope we will be able to strike the right balance between the Ombudsman's important working contacts and the Treaties that does not impinge on the Commission's institutional prerogatives.
So these are the Commission's reflections on the issues raised by Parliament's amendments, and after the vote tomorrow we will prepare our opinion and start discussions with the Council. This should be done quickly, since we want to facilitate an agreement on the file under the Slovenian presidency.
Maria Matsouka
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the EU is undoubtedly going through a particularly difficult period of crisis in credibility. Is the EU, I wonder, democratically credible? Indeed, for it to be so, it needs the legitimisation of its citizens, and this is becoming increasingly complex as Europe is enlarged. There is always the common foundation on which we built Europe and on which our fellow citizens rely. It is a system of values protecting their fundamental rights.
The need to communicate with European citizens is more pressing than ever. It is meaningful only when the EU receives their messages of concern and manages to convince them that the institutions are endeavouring to meet their expectations. Citizens do not trust us because they do not feel that we are promoting or even extending their rights. Our attempt has got to have a lasting effect, ladies and gentlemen. We must monitor historical developments and the new requirements they give rise to. The European Ombudsman's primary concern is to ensure the correct operation of the institutional bodies and organisation of the EU, boosting the confidence that citizens need to have in it.
The proposed changes in the rules of procedure revising the Statute of the Ombudsman equip him effectively for this. On behalf of the Committee on Petitions, we support them unreservedly.
Finally, let me congratulate in particular the rapporteur responsible for this issue, Mrs Jäätteenmäki, for her tireless efforts to achieve a universally acceptable report.
Maria da Assunção Esteves
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PT) The debate on the changes to the Statute of the Ombudsman in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs was not easy. It was a long and very controversial debate and the question at issue was essentially to decide whether extending the Ombudsman's powers was a rational step. We started from a clear premise, that the role of each institution in a democratic culture must be well defined and there must be no confusion over these roles. The clear definition and rational distribution of roles is the only way to promote legitimacy, effectiveness and accountability of the institutions.
It was for this very reason that the Ombudsman withdrew his proposal for access to the Court of Justice. However, compromises were reached on data protection, access to secret files and cooperation with other institutions on fundamental rights. The Ombudsman will now have access to secret files but will not be allowed to disclose such information to third parties. Data protection will follow European Union data protection rules.
It is clear that the Ombudsman can work with other institutions on the issue of fundamental rights, and it seems to me there can be no other way of proceeding. Cooperation with institutions on the subject of fundamental rights makes explicit an unwritten principle, given that fundamental rights form the foundations and aim of the European Union. However, the compromise reached in what was not an easy debate clarifies what I think must be the inevitable conclusion on this issue: the Ombudsman, as an institution, must always be clear that, when exercising his powers, he must do so in accordance with the criteria of need, appropriateness and proportionality, because these are the criteria of justice.
Costas Botopoulos
Mr President, European Ombudsman, ladies and gentlemen - my dear nocturnal colleagues, perhaps we have delayed a little in debating the improvement to the Statute of the European Ombudsman. However, I think that in the end we are doing so at an appropriate moment, because now that the European Parliament is debating in citizens' rights general, it is confronted with a new treaty on the operation of the EU and with a Charter of Fundamental Rights containing an article specific about the right of citizens to make complaints to the European Citizens' Advocate. I think it is therefore the right moment to debate the subject of the confidence of citizens in the EU bodies. Let me remind you that the European Ombudsman is at the service of European citizens to help them combat maladministration. I should like to add that it is high time for the European Parliament itself to show confidence both in its institutions and in the European Ombudsman.
I think that our debate about the changes started at the initiative of the current Ombudsman contained two misunderstandings, which we managed, I believe, to resolve in committee. The first related to the subject of competences. Some people have said that we are giving too many competences to the European Ombudsman, but this is not true. This report attempts to supplement the existing institutional competences of the European Ombudsman so that he can use them appropriately in all the areas which the rapporteur has spoken about.
The second misunderstanding was over the confidentiality of documents. This particular report does not state what documents the public has access to. It refers to the documents which the Ombudsman may see and lays down two clear rules: those documents which are sensitive, according to the regulation, may not be seen by anyone; documents subject to the confidentiality regime must continue to be subject to it. In conclusion, let me say that in the current circumstances it is very important for us to promote this report.
Andrew Duff
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, this initiative is a timely strengthening of the Statute of the Ombudsman, and a signal of confidence in the way that Mr Diamandouros and his predecessor, Mr Söderman, have exercised their functions. It also reflects a change in the political climate since the inception of the Office of the Ombudsman, especially with respect to increased transparency.
It would be palpably absurd for us as a Parliament to decline to allow the Ombudsman full access to documents on the grounds of secrecy. Public opinion would be bound to treat such a caveat with great cynicism.
I agree with Commissioner Wallström that it would be splendid if we could conclude these long-standing negotiations under the Slovenian presidency, so that we are properly prepared to face voters at the elections in spring 2009. We should be proud of these reforms, which I believe the entire Parliament will feel able to support.
David Hammerstein
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, the Greens want to strengthen the institution of Ombudsman in order to increase public confidence in the European institutions. How can we do this? By agreeing that the Ombudsman should have full access to all types of documents, including classified documents.
Moreover, we are delighted that the Ombudsman is to be able to hear the testimony of officials of the European institutions who are to be free of the constraint of having always to speak in accordance with the instructions of superiors in their administration. That is important.
It is also important, as mentioned in the Treaty of Lisbon and in this report, for the Ombudsman to have the power to intervene in cases before the Court of Justice, and we endorse the call made by the Ombudsman for greater transparency in general, including in this House, as regards the finances of MEPs.
This is the second time that the European Parliament has proposed improvements to the Statute of the Ombudsman. On the last occasion, the Council blocked those improvements. I am confident that this time the actual powers of the Ombudsman have finally been clarified, and that we have genuinely created a means of increasing the confidence of the man in the street in the European institutions.
Íñigo Méndez de Vigo
(ES) Mr President, some of my fellow Members here are going to say: what is happening today? Have we lost all sense? A Committee on Constitutional Affairs item at ten to eleven at night? What has happened, then? Did Mr Duff strike a blow and relegate Mr Watson to the second row of the Liberal Group? What did we do here in the People's Party? No, all we did here was comply with the recommendation of the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform, which says that, when there are only a few of us, we should try to meet together, if only to keep warm and not feel alone.
Seriously though, Mr President, I believe that the meeting tonight deals with an important topic. I am very pleased that the Ombudsman is here with us. This is because, as Mrs Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission, so rightly said, after a decade of operation, it is normal and right to stand back and look at what is not working and what could be improved.
This is precisely what the report of Mrs Jäätteenmäki aims to do and I would like to thank her for working so well with us all, and for seeking a consensus which demonstrates that, here in the European institutions, we live in a consensual and not a conflictual democracy. So, congratulations, Mrs Jäätteenmäki.
What we have tried to achieve, Mr President, is something very simple. When the position of Ombudsman was created by the Treaty of Maastricht, we were at an important crossroads between a basically economic Union and an encouragingly political Union. The Ombudsman was a key element in that transition.
Today we want to continue to support the Ombudsman in his work so that he can continue to be a vital player in this rapprochement between the institutions and European citizens.
I am therefore convinced that the reforms proposed - by consensus, I would repeat - by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs will go in that direction. At the next mini-plenary session we will debate the report of Mr Stubbs, who is dealing with another important aspect, transparency in the European institutions. Both reports are leading in the same direction, Mr President, and show that here, even at five to eleven at night, we are concerning ourselves with our citizens.
Richard Corbett
Mr President, the European institutions are unavoidably more distant from citizens than are national or local institutions. That is why we have the principle of subsidiarity, which states that we should not act at European level if national or local action is perfectly adequate.
That is also why we have an institutional system such that when we do act at European level we can offer citizens the guarantee that the institutions operate to the highest degree of openness, democracy and propriety. That is why we have a European Parliament, so that Europe is not just left to government ministers and technocrats, diplomats and bureaucrats. That is why we have the Court of Justice, to ensure the rule of law.
That is also why we have the Ombudsman, so that even those citizens who do not follow our deliberations week in, week out - and there are many of them - can rest assured that we operate to those high standards, and that if there are allegations of maladministration then they will be properly and impartially investigated.
However, as Commissioner Wallström said, citizens must have confidence in the Ombudsman's capacity to do that. Even if there have not yet been any cases of officials, when questioned by the Ombudsman, having been given instructions from 'higher-up' tantamount to censorship, and even if there have not up to now been problems of access to confidential documents, it is important that our citizens see that these things cannot become obstacles, and cannot be used as excuses to hide things from the Ombudsman.
That is why I welcome the initiative the Ombudsman has taken in proposing changes to his statute. My group will be supporting the changes approved by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I am sure that Parliament as a whole will endorse them whole-heartedly.
Dushana Zdravkova
(BG) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mrs. Jäätteenmäki for that fact that since the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights were signed a new framework on the Ombudsman's role in modern social relations has been proposed. I am confident that this document will contribute to the more efficient execution of his duty and will make him an actual guarantor of effective protection for European citizens against cases of bad governance on the part of European institutions
Both our discussions and the report focus on the sensitive topic of the Ombudsman's access to information, including classified information. In my opinion, if the Ombudsman's work is to be done effectively and if we are to ensure the best possible result in the inquest into objective truth, which is primarily in the public interest, European institutions should have the obligation to provide access to any type of information. At the same time, however, the Ombudsman must be informed of the type of such information, especially in cases where it is confidential. Indeed, it is very important to respect citizens' privacy, particularly when using classified information. I think that the rapporteur has managed to strike a balance between personal rights and public interest. This provides the Ombudsman with access to the entire information on a given case, so that he or she can rule on it while at the same time there is compliance with all rules which are followed also by those institutions providing such information, and this will ensure both the protection of the information involved and the protection of European citizens' rights.
Strengthening the Ombudsman's role as a mediator between the European institutions and the citizens will make a contribution to the development of democracy and reinforce the principles of rule of law. That is why it is very important that he or she is present not only at the European but at the national level as well, especially in countries where democratic principles and supervision are still in the process of being built and where government structures cannot provide effective remedy for their citizens at the national level, yet those citizens are also citizens of the European Union. That is why I would like to stress on the need to improve cooperation between the EU institutions and the Ombudsman. Contacts between the Ombudsman and Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament are particularly important; they need to cooperate in the interest of European citizens. It is also important to develop and implement a more effective system of practical mechanisms for cooperation.
Metin Kazak
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Jäätteenmäki's report comes at a very important time in the process of European integration: the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The acknowledgement, for the first time, of the right of the citizens of Europe to a good administration constitutes significant progress towards greater transparency and meets the need for the actions and the behaviour of Community bodies to comply not only with the rules in force but also with the expectations of the European taxpayer as regards a responsible, impartial and efficient administration.
The proposed changes would make it possible, during an investigation, to overcome any unwillingness on the part of the Community institutions to cooperate fully in the clarification of the facts. Any possible willingness to gloss over certain aspects of the truth by adopting vague texts whose wording is open to ambiguous interpretation cannot be tolerated. This allows an administration far too much latitude and increases its discretionary powers in a disproportionate and unacceptable manner.
The Ombudsman needs the confidence of the citizens who expect him to intervene judiciously in the protection of their rights. However, he is also duty bound to respect the confidentiality of the information that he receives. For this reason, I congratulate Mrs Jäätteenmäki for having struck an appropriate balance between these two requirements and for having proposed balanced solutions that strengthen the effectiveness of the role of the Ombudsman as a moral authority and improve the transparency of the Community institutions, confirming, in the spirit of the new Charter, the right of every European citizen to good governance and a good administration.
Margot Wallström
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank the honourable Members for this discussion and their remarks. Many Members have mentioned that this is an issue of competencies and also of confidentiality. Those two issues are linked, and I am sure that these reforms will remove the ambiguities that institutions might, on occasion, have used to hide behind. The reforms will modernise and open up procedures and ensure greater clarity and transparency, which is necessary in these times and in order to meet citizens' expectations.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ms Jäätteenmäki once again for working in an open and constructive way with us, and for informing us on her work. I would also like to thank the Ombudsman himself, because I have had the opportunity to follow his work, and am aware of the level of correctness, seriousness and commitment with which he carries out his tasks. It has really impressed me, and I have great confidence in him.
By this initiative we are also helping the Ombudsman align his statute with what we would expect from the Ombudsman in his examination of cases of maladministration within our institutions.
Anneli Jäätteenmäki
rapporteur. - (FI) Mr President, I just want to thank everyone for their excellent cooperation and at this final review stage I hope that we will find the right wording so that there is greater confidence as a result of EU acts, that there will be adequate resources in place and that the Ombudsman can be provided with all necessary information. If not, as I said, it will be a bad day for the rule of law and for transparency, although I believe that a common view will be found, because now there are only a few minor changes to make.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 22 April 2008.


Problems and prospects concerning European citizenship (short presentation)
President
The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Gacek, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on problems and prospects concerning European Citizenship.
Urszula Gacek
rapporteur. - Mr President, it is my pleasure to present the report on the problems and perspectives concerning European citizenship, which was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) last month.
European citizenship does not replace national citizenship. It is an added bonus, giving EU citizens unique rights, notably the right to the freedom of movement, the right to consular protection and the right to petition Parliament and the European Ombudsman. Parliament's report takes into consideration the Commission's fifth report on European citizenship, covering the period from 1 May 2004 to 30 June 2007. This is a unique period. Five years ago, on 1 May 2004, 10 new Member States joined the European Union. The result of that accession, especially of states from Central and Eastern Europe, was a hitherto unseen scale of inter-Union migration. The new citizens of the European Union embraced the rights granted to them, especially the right to free movement. They benefited from the opportunity to be educated abroad and, in those countries which opened their labour markets, they undertook legal work.
The scale of migration, however, poses many challenges for the host countries. These are challenges for both the central and local authorities. Local authorities, particularly, where they are responsible for the provision of services such as housing, health care and primary and secondary education, are often confronted with the day-to-day problems of the new immigrants.
Much has been done to aid integration, as well as to help newcomers benefit from the same rights as citizens of their host countries. Nevertheless, instances of discrimination remain. Sometimes these are the result of legal loopholes and sometimes the result of a lack of knowledge of how to apply the law.
The LIBE Committee took a very constructive and practical approach in its work. There was cross-party agreement that our priority was to highlight the problem areas and undertake steps to remedy them by providing central and local government in Member States with the necessary resources and support. Our primary concern was that the individual citizen should not be hindered in any way from benefiting from his or her rights.
The second right I mentioned, that of consular protection, is still, unfortunately, poorly applied. This fact was brought starkly to our attention when our own colleagues found themselves in a dramatic situation during the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. If MEPs had problems exercising their right to consular protection in such an extreme situation, what chance does the average citizen have in more mundane circumstances?
Increasing citizens' awareness of their rights was a key issue raised throughout the report and a number of measures are suggested for greater awareness building. If only 31% of citizens consider themselves to be well-informed about their rights, we still have a lot to do.
I trust the Commission will take into account Parliament's recommendations and will report back in its sixth report on the concrete progress made. Finally, I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs, the staff of the political groups and the LIBE Committee secretariat for their hard work. A special word of thanks goes to all those who participated in the public hearing on the report, especially the representatives of the NGOs. It is fitting that, in a report on citizenship, the citizen's voice, via the NGOs, was heeded in drawing up the final report.
Günter Verheugen
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, Mrs Gacek, it seems that we are now quite alone in this House. On behalf of the Commission, I should like to thank you for this very important, impressive report and to extend our congratulations.
The issue here is something very important: European citizenship. Many think 'European citizenship' is a hollow phrase and means nothing, but your report makes quite clear that that is not the case. European citizenship is made a reality by means of rights that are precisely defined in the Treaty, to wit free movement and right of residence, the right to vote and stand for election in local and European elections, the right to consular protection, the right to petition the European Parliament, the right to complain to the European Ombudsman and the right to write to the European institutions.
The Commission takes the view that it is high time there was a specific policy programme on European citizenship. To this end, the Commission intends to carry out a comprehensive consultation process so that specific information can be gathered on the problems of European citizenship. This could lead to new proposals, which would then form the basis of the Sixth Commission Report on Citizenship of the Union, which is scheduled for 2010.
Aside from this, however, the Commission is working and will continue to work day to day to ensure that citizens are indeed able to exercise their civil rights, and are able to do so every day. In a large number of areas where your report, Mrs Gacek, calls on the Commission to act, the Commission is already taking action to ensure that these rights are reinforced and extended. I should like to give the example of the Commission Action Plan on consular protection, and would add that I fully agree with you that this is an area in which something needs to be done. After all, just a few weeks ago, we held an extremely instructive debate on the subject in this House that showed the extent of the gulf between aspiration and reality in the very case of consular rights.
The Commission has arranged for citizens to be informed about their rights by means of information campaigns, and is endeavouring to put in place guarantees that these rights can actually be exercised - particularly by adopting its report on the application by Member States of the Directive on free movement.
The forthcoming European elections are one of the priorities of interinstitutional public relations. The Commission supports and supplements Parliament's campaign to put in place information measures to increase public awareness of these elections and to call on citizens to exercise their electoral rights.
It is fortunate that we are doing so, and I should also like to emphasise that it is not just the Commission that is endeavouring to realise European citizenship in day-to-day life. Other actors, too - this Parliament, all 27 Member States, the regional authorities, the national Parliaments, the local authorities and every municipality in the European Union - play a very important role in the effective development of European citizenship.
I am pleased that the report by Mrs Gacek, published in good time before the 2009 European elections, involves some of these very important actors, who should all take ownership of European citizenship in order to make Europe real for its millions of citizens. I believe we all see it as our shared responsibility to ensure that European citizenship is seen not as a mere symbol but as a specific right to which substance can and must be given in day-to-day life.
President
The item is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Slavi Binev
in writing. - (BG) Transparency and democratic relations between citizens and institutions are fundamental principles in Europe and basic rights of European citizens. These are precisely the principles on which the parliamentary elections must take place. However, the problem in Bulgaria of vote buying indicates the exact opposite.
After the previous local elections were repeatedly compromised by the blatant buying of votes of GERB (Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria), DPS (Movement for Rights and Freedoms) and BSP (Bulgarian Socialist Party), ordinary citizens were left feeling that they had no right to choose. As a result, this makes them much less willing to vote again.
In spite of the existing criminal code and the numerous signs of violations of the law, not a single person mentioned in the Commission's report has yet been convicted of these crimes because the relevant law enforcement authorities are clearly unwilling to stop vote buying. In Bulgaria the judiciary still shows a lack of determination and the well-known culprits are again preparing pre-election campaigns, while those who sold their votes are now looking for new buyers offering the best bid.
I want to stress that as long as these violations of the law are allowed in Bulgaria and the state continues not to take any action on the issue, honest voters are in actual fact being deprived of their basic human right - the right to choose! This is unacceptable for European citizens. I urge Parliament not to sit back and do nothing.
Magda Kósáné Kovács
The Treaty on the European Union states that every citizen of the Union is equal. Unfortunately, however, this principle is not always fulfilled in reality. The reason for differences is the spread of extreme poverty, social exclusion or deliberate exclusion, regions with multiple disadvantages that have been left out of the information society, and whose citizens cannot even be expected to have a common European awareness. I welcome the fact that the report specifically mentions the Roma. This minority of 10-12 million lives in segregation and experience their educational disadvantages and hopeless employment situation as a devaluation of their citizenship.
There are indications that this breakdown of society will have an effect on the European Parliamentary elections as well. The willingness of the most disadvantaged to vote is falling, since they lack information and at the margins of society there is less awareness of the significance of the fact that of all the EU institutions, it is only the composition of the European Parliament that they can directly influence. It is unfortunate that indifference is particularly great in Central and Eastern European countries, the roots of which is once again to be sought in the inadequacy of information, but another contributing factor is that the pace of catching up after the great wave of enlargement has slowed down and caused disappointment.
We hope that the free movement of citizens, workers and service providers will break down borders in people's minds and thinking as well. If it becomes natural that moving around within the boundaries of a larger home is the realisation of increased freedom, then the multi-layered and multicoloured European Union can embrace a large number of diverse, yet cohesive and tolerant European citizens.