Consumer Markets Scoreboard (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Anna Hedh, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the Consumer Markets Scoreboard.
Anna Hedh
Mr President, The internal market is an extremely important part of the European cooperation, but for many consumers it is nothing more than a vague concept. Irrespective of how well we recognise its importance, rules and provisions, we are all consumers and are all affected by how the internal market operates. I have always maintained that if we have satisfied and confident European consumers, we will also have an internal market that operates efficiently and thrives.
In order to win this trust, we must make the internal market more efficient and sensitive to citizens' expectations and problems. This does not necessarily mean more or stricter legislation and rules imposed by the EU. Information, education and self-regulation can often be a more appropriate and more effective solution. Irrespective of how we solve the problems, the aim must always be to ensure that we safeguard consumers' rights so that they can make good and well-founded decisions. This is, of course, also a good thing for the market itself. Therefore, the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection and I welcome the Consumer Markets Scoreboard that the Commission presented at the request of the Committee. We believe that it could be an important tool for the future development of consumer policy.
The internal market comprises around 500 million consumers and has a large supply of goods and services. It is, of course, impossible to examine in detail all aspects of the internal market. It is therefore important to use analytic resources where they are actually needed most. I welcome the five areas that the Commission has focused on, namely complaints, price levels, satisfaction, switching and safety. These five main indicators are relevant and applicable, even if there will, over time, be a need to further develop and improve them and maybe also to include some new categories.
I would also like to stress the importance of raising awareness of the Scoreboard amongst consumers themselves and the general public. It is therefore important for it to be written in an easily accessible language. Moreover, the Scoreboard should be visible on relevant websites.
Finally, I would like to say that it will take time to develop the Scoreboard, partly because we have made very different degrees of progress in the different Member States with regard to consumer policy and consumer protection, but also because we are different, with different cultures and different traditions. We must be patient and give this Consumer Markets Scoreboard time.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Commissioner Kuneva and her secretariat, as well as my own secretariat, for their extremely constructive cooperation.
Danuta Hübner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Scoreboard initiative came into existence less than a year ago and during that time the Commission has greatly appreciated Parliament's interest and support.
The Scoreboard has been the subject of many debates in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and we have learnt a lot from these debates and from the suggestions made. Thank you very much for all that, but especially thanks to Ms Anna Hedh for the excellent report.
Let me reiterate briefly why the Consumer Market Scoreboard is so important for all of us. If we are to deliver to consumers, we need to be more responsive to their expectations and better understand the problems they are facing in their day-to-day lives. To do so, we need an evidence base that shows how markets perform in terms of economic and social outcomes for consumers, and how consumers behave on the market. Sound policy-making requires accurate data, and we fully share your view on this.
The Scoreboard brings together evidence to identify markets that risk not delivering well for consumers and therefore need further attention. It also allows progress in retail market integration to be tracked, and helps to benchmark the consumer environment in Member States, particularly in terms of compliance with consumer legislation, enforcement, redress, and consumer empowerment. We share your views on which indicators to include in this Scoreboard, and we believe that the establishment of a harmonised EU-wide database of consumer complaints will be an essential step forward. It will allow us to detect problems in consumer markets at an early stage and, if necessary, to take appropriate action.
The Commission firmly believes that it is important to include price data, since prices are one of consumers' principal concerns. The current political and economic climate further reinforces the need for good price data. We need to send a clear signal to our consumers that we are keeping an eye on how prices compare across the internal market. The Commission can assure you that it is fully aware of the complexity of this issue, and will of course interpret this data carefully and make sure the data are put in the right context. Prices may diverge across the internal market for sound economic reasons, but also because of market malfunctioning, and our aim is to find ways to tell the difference.
We share Ms Hedh's view on the importance of close cooperation with Member States. This year, the Commission started to work together with national policy-makers, statistical offices, enforcement authorities and consumer organisations to further develop the Scoreboard indicators, and we will continue with this cooperation in the coming years. Ms Hedh has stressed that we should make this Scoreboard more accessible to a larger public and that we should raise awareness. The Commission accepts this point, and will step up efforts to do so. I invite you to see the results in the second edition of the Scoreboard.
Finally, what the Commission wishes to take from Ms Hedh's report - although I could quote many other points if I had more time - is the wish for more empowerment indicators such as literacy and skills. Within the framework of Eurostat's revised European Social Survey Programme, the Commission plans to run a module on consumer empowerment through which it wants to measure consumer skills, consumer information and awareness of rights and assertiveness. This would allow us to start drawing up a statistical snapshot of Europe's citizens in their capacity as consumers. We see this as the main subject of the pilot project proposed by the Parliament for 2009. Let me conclude by again thanking Ms Hedh for the interest and support, not least in financial terms.
President
That concludes this item.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Slavi Binev
in writing. - (BG) I welcome Anna Hedh's report on the Consumer Markets Scoreboard and its aim of making the internal market more sensitive to the expectations and concerns of citizens. Over the past 19 years of Bulgaria's so-called democratic transition, we have had our fill of various privatisation solutions put forward by the ruling authorities in Bulgaria. A striking case is when proven thieves from the ČEZ Měření power company were allowed into the Bulgarian domestic market. The gentlemen of ČEZ, whom we of ATAKA have long identified as blatant gangsters, have been indicted in their own country. 32 of their employees have been arrested for blackmailing customers whom they accused of stealing electricity. But obviously too busy with corruption, the tripartite coalition in Bulgaria did not consider this reason enough to throw these criminals out, as the governments of Canada and Hungary did, and so ČEZ continues to rob and blackmail the Bulgarian taxpayer under the guise of their neat little privatisation agreements.
I believe that the adoption of the Consumer Markets Scoreboard will improve the tools for keeping tabs on sectors which need to be investigated for weaknesses and infringements, will involve the national consumer protection authorities in preserving the quality of social services, and will help to restore consumer confidence in the internal market.
Zita Pleštinská
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament has the priority aim of improving the position of European consumers in the internal market. It is constantly calling on the Commission and the Member States to research what consumers think about the internal market and particularly what they need. The main precondition for an effective and well-functioning internal market is consumer confidence.
Recognising the advantages of the evaluation table for the internal market which has been used since 1997, the committee has called on the Commission to submit a proposal for an evaluation table for consumer markets as an instrument for assessing the market from a consumer perspective as well.
Complaints, pricing levels, satisfaction, interfaces and security are the five main indicators used in the evaluation table. The committee realises that since this will be the first ever evaluation table for consumer markets, some of these indicators will have to be replaced with new ones in the future. The indicator referring to pricing levels is particularly doubtful.
I agree with the opinion of the rapporteur, Anna Hedh, that the table should be properly promoted through the media and placed on the relevant websites. My preference would be for the Commission to provide financial support for a public awareness campaign which would be carried out by the consumer organisations. Due to their experience in the area of consumer policy, they will know the best way to get the table across to consumers.
I firmly believe that the table will have to capture the interest of consumers if it is to become an important instrument for the future development of consumer policy.


Assignment conferred on a Member
President
Before we move on to the agenda, there is another announcement that I have to make to you. The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic has informed me of his decision to appoint Mr Jan Zahradil as his representative to the deliberations on the Berlin Declaration, and, more generally, in matters relating to the revival of the constitutional process during the German Presidency. The matter was referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs, pursuant to Rule 4(5) of the Rules of Procedure, which, at its meeting on 19-20 March 2007, came to the conclusion that this office is compatible with the spirit and letter of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, that there is therefore no conflict of interest, and that Mr Jan Zahradil can continue to exercise his mandate as a Member of this House.


Transitional procedural guidelines on budgetary matters in view of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (debate)
President
The next item is the report (Α7-0045/2009) by Mr Lamassoure, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on transitional procedural guidelines on budgetary matters in view of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty [2009/2168(ΙΝΙ)].
Alain Lamassoure
Mr President, first of all, I should like to take this opportunity to thank President Barroso and Commissioner Šemeta for their decision to postpone the publication of the Commission's proposals on the future budgetary policy and on the updating of the financial perspective until the next six-month term.
Admittedly, the European Council and Parliament had agreed that this update would take place in 2008-2009, but that was four years ago, which is an eternity. In the meantime, there has been the Treaty of Lisbon, the first Irish referendum, the financial crisis, the delay in the entry into force of the new treaty, and so on.
It is therefore wiser to entrust the new Commission with the task of presenting its political programme and the financial translation of that programme together in a few months' time.
On the other hand, as the Treaty of Lisbon is due to come into force on 1 December, we must waste no time in adopting the transitional measures necessary to go from one treaty to another in the budgetary field.
The Swedish Presidency has proposed that the conciliation committee of 18 November be an opportunity for the three institutions to reach a political agreement on this subject. It is therefore now a question of Parliament giving a negotiating mandate to its delegation at the conciliation committee.
Four points must be dealt with as soon as possible; none should present a serious political problem.
Firstly, the transfer procedure: abolishing the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenses requires the adoption of a single procedure, putting the two budgetary authorities on an equal footing, without compromising the flexibility that must be shown by the European Commission when managing the budget.
Secondly, the supplementary budgets: from the beginning of 2010, a first supplementary budget will be required in order to give all the institutions concerned the financial resources to exercise the new powers provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon. We therefore need a simplified procedure, inspired by the new procedure that the treaty affords the main budget itself.
Thirdly, the timetable for the preparatory meetings among the three institutions, or what we refer to as the pragmatic timetable: this is a point on which we need not do anything different from what we did before.
Fourthly - finally - the procedure for resorting to the provisional twelfths system, in the unlikely yet possible event that we fail to reach an agreement on the 2010 budget: on this point, we feel that the Treaty of Lisbon's provisions are precise enough to rule out the need for a supplement.
Your Committee on Budgets has adopted these proposals by a very large majority. I invite the House to do the same, so that we can conclude the negotiations with the Council and the Commission by the deadline set.
Algirdas Šemeta
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Lamassoure for his report.
The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will modify the rules in the budget sector, with the European Parliament and the Council as codeciders on an equal footing on all expenditures. It will imply a new legal framework which will require careful consideration between the institutions.
As our common responsibility is to ensure that the budget processes and operations run continuously and smoothly, I share the rapporteur's views that we need to agree on transitional guidelines urgently. These transitional rules are of a rather technical nature and they will only be in force until the new legal framework enters into force.
The rapporteur has identified the right issues to be discussed in his report. We will need new rules to operate transfers and new rules to adopt amending budgets. We will need a timetable that will allow an adequate involvement of all actors. We will also need to agree on clear collaboration principles and, if necessary, we will need some rules on provisional twelfths.
I can confirm here that I am ready to make the necessary suggestions in order to reach a balanced agreement. I propose that we start discussing these issues in the trialogue that we will have this afternoon. I hope the three institutions will be able to reach an agreement during the November conciliation.
Salvador Garriga Polledo
Mr President, Lisbon is going to bring in many changes, but few will be as dramatic as those to be made to the budget procedure.
Any general rapporteur on budgets knows how the current strategy of two-round negotiation operates: clearly, covering this ground in one round is going to require additional efforts in terms of cooperation and consensus between the various institutions.
This new situation is already having an influence on the current negotiation of the budget procedure and its conciliation next week, because we know that this is the last time that it will be done in the current manner. I would like to congratulate the Committee on Budgets on the speed and flexibility with which it has put these transitional rules before us.
The next few months will be crucial for budget policy: there will be urgent transfers; there will be urgent amending budgets arriving over the next few months, to which it will be necessary to give a full response using a new procedure; and it will be necessary, among other things, to debate a budget balances amending budget using a new procedure that will require great responsibility on the part of all the institutions.
With regard to these transitional rules, my group takes the view that we will all have to make an additional effort, but the future President of the Council will, in particular, play a very important role, especially in maintaining the current 'gentlemen's agreement' in force. It is possible that the Council will be tempted to try to act so as to favour itself for very urgent budget matters, such as the European External Action Service, but, clearly, the three institutions will be on an equal footing and, on Parliament's part, what there will be is a significant sense of responsibility.
Göran Färm
Mr President, the Treaty of Lisbon will bring big changes, not least in the area of the budget. As many people have pointed out, the most important change is that the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure areas will disappear. The European Parliament will therefore have the power of codecision on the whole budget, and we will have a new, simplified budgetary procedure. The treaty is now ready and approved, but that does not mean that we can go over to the new procedure straight away.
For one thing, we are in full agreement about implementing this year's budget process under the old rules, as trying to change this in the middle of the reading of the budget would result in chaos. Secondly, before we can apply the new treaty in full, we need a new interinstitutional agreement. We need an updated Financial Regulation and a new, renegotiated long-term budget, the multiannual financial framework, as part of this new legislation.
This will take time. In order to be able to start work on the budget in 2010, we therefore need a number of transitional provisions. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Lamassoure, who took the initiative for this report very quickly and produced it in record time, while nevertheless cooperating very closely with the various groups in the committee. You have my thanks.
We have also included in the report a number of opinions on the nature of the new permanent solutions. We Social Democrats in particular have put forward a few opinions. The most important one is to ensure that Parliament's new powers are applied even during the transitional period and that the proposals that need to be tabled result in a new interinstitutional agreement in future and that a revised Financial Regulation must be viewed as a package so that we achieve a functional whole without overlaps and interpretation problems.
I hope that in today's trialogue, we will also be able to agree on the first elements of this. In conclusion, I would just like to say that the change that this will mean for the budgetary procedure is a good example of the simplification and reduction in bureaucratic procedures that the whole of the EU is in dire need of.
Anne E. Jensen
Mr President, I, too, would like to start by saying how pleased I am that we now have the Treaty of Lisbon in place, a treaty which will, of course, give Parliament more power over the budget and change the way we adopt the EU's annual budget. We are in a transitional phase, in which the budget for 2010 is being adopted under the old treaty but the implementation of the budget will be monitored and followed up under the new treaty. However we resolve this in practice, we have made a start with Mr Lamassoure's report, and I would like to thank him for taking the initiative so quickly. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe wholeheartedly supports the report, which indicates how we are to deal with the amending budgets and transfers and other things that have already been mentioned.
The Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group has tabled a number of amendments proposing the abolition of the amending budgets and transfers. I can tell you that the ALDE Group will be voting against all of the EFD Group's proposals. We agree with Mr Lamassoure that the number of amending budgets should be reduced. However, unexpected things do happen during the course of a year and we therefore need an instrument like this. Moreover, national parliaments also have such an instrument. It is possible to make changes during the year. The increasing number of requests for money from the Globalisation Adjustment Fund in connection with the large number of dismissals alone will, of course, result in a number of amending budgets. We should not do away with the possibility of transfers between accounts, either. There are very fixed rules for how much the Commission can transfer and how it is to be done - it cannot simply be done however the Commission fancies. It must ask Parliament and the Council first.
The report also points out that the Financial Regulation and the interinstitutional agreement should now be amended, too, and I very much look forward to us receiving a proposal from the Commission soon.
Helga Trüpel
Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I would like to state that we explicitly support the mandate for the chairman of the Committee on Budgets, Alain Lamassoure. We are sure that he will lead the negotiations in the transitional period in which we currently find ourselves very well and with great self-assurance. We know that, in the transition from the applicability of the Treaty of Nice to the Treaty of Lisbon - which we were all awaiting and which we need in order to make Europe more democratic and transparent - we need clear rules.
The Committee on Budgets is responsible, together with the Council and others, for producing the European budget, and we say clearly to the Council that we are going to protect and strengthen our parliamentary rights. We will not allow - and this is just as true under Mr Lamassoure's leadership in the negotiations - these rights to be curtailed in any way, as we are absolutely sure that there must be no shift in power towards the Council.
I would like to remind you that it is absolutely necessary, when it comes to the new budgets over the next few years, for the European budget to be created jointly by the Member States and the European Parliament with a real European spirit. Only then can we make the European Union fit for the future. I would also like to remind you, in relation to financial regulations, and specifically in relation to how the money is actually dispersed to and within the Member States, that this must, of course, take place in a way that is secure against abuse. There must not be any scandals or fraud, but the financial regulations must also be made simpler and more transparent so that our European programmes do not create local nuisance, but actually reach the people. That is how we should formulate our European budgetary policy over the next few years.
Marta Andreasen
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, following the report by the honourable Member, Mrs Guy-Quint, dated April 2008, the new legal framework affecting budgetary matters should now be ready for adoption. All the institutions agreed that this would be the case so as to avoid any legal vacuum. We should therefore have no need for transitional guidelines on budgetary matters.
The report from the honourable Member, Mr Lamassoure, focuses on the approval of amending budgets and transfers, both of which constitute risky and inadequate practices that reveal a lack of professionalism as concerns the budgeting and planning process and are bound to become more risky in transitional periods.
The current number of amending budgets is excessive and does not even comply with the conditions set out in Article 37 of the Financial Regulation.
The current number of transfers is also excessive and would not occur if the planning of the budget was done with a better understanding of the needs of the different sectors in the different countries.
As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am appalled to see almost the whole committee, except for me, approve all of these requests for transfers.
Therefore, no amending budgets or transfers should be approved during the transitional period and all efforts should be concentrated on the adoption of the legal framework so as to avoid further damage to the interests of taxpayers.
Daniël van der Stoep
(NL) Mr President, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) is sitting in the European Parliament for the first time, and is shocked by the mercenary attitude of the Members of this House. In that sense, Parliament resembles an anti-parliament. The objective seems to be to extract as much money as possible from the pockets of the hard-working citizens of Europe and, in particular, the Netherlands.
Billions are being spent on pet subjects of the left, such as the climate and development aid, whilst in the Netherlands, people are failing to receive treatment in care homes, the qualifying age for the state old-age pension (AOW) is being raised to 67 years and the police force is having to make cutbacks. Mr President, this Parliament should be there for citizens, but instead is just realising its own politically correct, extravagant schemes and those of its elitist chums.
Unfortunately, the Irish have given the loathsome Treaty of Lisbon their seal of approval, but at least they were given the choice. The PVV finds it disgraceful that this dreadful treaty has been rammed down the throats of the Dutch people. Unfortunately, however, it is a reality and, regrettably, we too shall have to learn to live with it.
The PVV cooperates constructively in this House. Yet we cannot go along with the present report. The Netherlands is the largest net contributor per citizen, and we want to see this change very soon. My request to the rapporteur is that he include in the report a statement to the effect that the European Parliament calls on the Council to put the swiftest possible end to the continuing position of the Netherlands as the largest net contributor per citizen.
If this is stated in the report, four more lights will turn to green in this Chamber during today's vote. This strikes me as a golden opportunity for the rapporteur. I should like to add that we shall be supporting all the amendments tabled by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group.
László Surján
(HU) Ladies and gentlemen, after the First World War in Hungary, temporary huts were built in Budapest, intended to provide hospital treatment for prisoners of war returning home. These temporary huts are still in operation even today.
We want to introduce transitional procedural regulations in order to safeguard the budget process. I believe that Mr Lamassoure, the rapporteur and chairman of the committee, has mentioned and wants to see implemented principles which will last at least as long as the temporary huts in operation for 90 years I just mentioned. It is extremely important that we have paid a high price for the Treaty of Lisbon. We have given up certain principles, and the citizens of one country, the Czech Republic, will benefit less from human rights than the majority of Europeans. It is our fundamental duty to implement smoothly, seamlessly and efficiently this treaty which we have paid so dearly for. In my view, the proposals which the rapporteur is now asking for authorisation to implement serve this purpose more than adequately. This is why my group would like a significant majority in Parliament to accept them without any changes.
Finally, still on the subject of things temporary, an advert appeared a few decades ago saying that flats intended for permanent ownership had been built for Soviet officers on a temporary posting to Hungary. This means that no matter how permanent we think something is, it becomes out of date after a certain time. I hope that when these current regulations cease to be valid, better ones will replace them. With this hope, I ask everyone to support this proposal.
Eider Gardiazábal Rubial
(ES) Mr President, as has already been said, the Treaty of Lisbon is finally going to enter into force and some of the effects of this entry into force will be felt immediately after it is signed; for example, some of the work of the Committee on Budgets must be governed by new rules starting from January. Therefore, we in the three institutions are already working to establish provisional rules to govern our work while the new regulations referred to in the treaty are debated and adopted.
We fully back the report by Mr Lamassoure. We do not believe that there is anything more to be added to its conclusions. I only hope that in the dialogue that is starting between the three institutions, consensus will prevail and that nobody will try to weight the scales in their own favour.
With your permission, I would like to make a couple of observations, because I have the impression that at times, there is a certain optimism among a section of the Committee on Budgets, and that this optimism has led us to adopt a recital affirming that the Treaty of Lisbon considerably simplifies the budget procedure.
I have just arrived in this Parliament, and clearly I had no experience in relation to the European budget but, honestly, what I have been able to read of the new budget provisions does not incline me to share this optimism. The procedure is going to be complex and, depending on the extent of agreement or, more likely, lack of agreement between Parliament and the Council, it is going to be complicated. However, we will not know this for sure until some budget procedures have been conducted under the new rules.
What we can know right away is the Council's state of mind and, on that point, the truth is that I am not too optimistic, because I can see the Council trying to corner as much power as possible in order to be able to block any decision that goes against the orthodox line. That is to say, it wants to be able to block any decision that is directed towards spending one euro more than planned, no matter what happens. If this is the case, if it wishes to retain all control, I believe that the Council is making a big mistake, because what the Council needs is to have a strong Parliament that it can work alongside.
Timo Soini
(FI) Mr President, I support the well-argued proposals put forward by my colleague, Mrs Andreasen. In this report, you welcome the existence of the Treaty of Lisbon. That is your right, but for my part, I will say again that I am sad to see our sovereignty being crushed. You won, but we will be here and we will be on your conscience, because the way the Treaty of Lisbon was pushed through was not right. The matter of sovereignty will never die. The report mentions that several amendments to the law will need to be made so that this financial constitution - that is what it says - can be brought into effect. So you have admitted it. It is thus a constitution: financially, politically and legally. We were right and our struggle for sovereignty will continue here.
(Applause)
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, there is no doubt that the Lisbon Treaty introduces far-reaching changes concerning the budget and procedures for its adoption. I will mention only the removal of the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure, which should strengthen Parliament's position, and recognition of a multiannual financial framework as a legally binding legislative act. Equally important is the simplification of the budget procedure.
While thinking of these changes, we must not, however, forget about their effective implementation, so that we can ensure the easiest possible transition to the new principles. This is especially important from the point of view of the beneficiaries of the EU budget.
We now have before us the task of identifying those areas where temporary guidelines are most needed. I would, therefore, like to express support for this report, along with all the efforts to adopt means for putting budgetary affairs in order in accordance with the new treaty.
Reimer Böge
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I very much welcome - personally, as well as in my function as the rapporteur for multiannual financial planning - the report by the chairman of our committee, Mr Lamassoure, as it builds the necessary bridges, including in terms of legal certainty, that we need until we have agreed on the necessary adaptation of the interinstitutional agreement and on further technical procedures that we need to clear up under treaty law. I want to spell out the fact that this decision also clarifies that, for us, the entire package will remain as it is for future negotiations - from the question of adapting the interinstitutional agreement to the issue of how we will interact with the future External Action Service, for example, in purely budgetary terms.
In the light of the existing agreement, I also think it is right that the relevant evaluation of the functioning of the existing interinstitutional agreement - I would say technically as well as from a budgetary policy point of view - should properly be integrated into this process of the overall package to implement the Treaty of Lisbon. This, moreover, does not just mean the issue of technicalities and procedures, but also the examination of necessary flexibilities and leeway within the budget, if we honestly intend to implement the Treaty of Lisbon in the budgetary policy sphere.
Jiří Havel
(CS) Mr President, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks to Mr Lamassoure for the report he has written. In my opinion, this document is necessary and it was written with appropriate speed. We know that the Treaty of Lisbon will actually enter into force from December this year and we definitely need this report. I would like to respond to some of the speeches addressing the validity of the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty is now in force and it does not make sense to discuss it further. I would also like to talk about one comment made by László Surján. I would like to give my word to Mr Surján on behalf of the Czech Republic that the Czech Social Democrats will do everything possible to ensure that the exception demanded by President Klaus is withdrawn on behalf of the Czech Republic, as we consider it outrageous.
Lajos Bokros
(HU) The European Conservatives and Reformists Group also happily endorses the transitional procedural guidelines on budgetary matters, but with the fairly significant addition that we too would not want the transitional procedural guidelines on budgetary matters to become permanent. On the other hand, we think that a transition between two different systems is necessary so that transitional procedural guidelines need to be drafted. This does not necessarily leave the process open to the danger of superfluous reallocations. In fact, we must avoid the situation in the future where reallocations are made every week and every month. This is why it must be stipulated in the permanent guidelines that such reallocations cannot be made any more than twice a year so that we can preserve the budget's unity, stability and transparency.
President
Mr Lamassoure, this may be the first time in your life that this has happened, but the President is giving you 15 minutes' speaking time, if you so desire, to close this debate.
You may say anything you want to, I guess, or you may stick to the two minutes that are in the agenda for your closing remarks!
Alain Lamassoure
Mr President, I shall not abuse this exceptional right that you are granting me.
I should like to thank all of the spokespersons from the groups that support the main proposals of the report and to assure all of the groups that we will continue, with the European Commission and with the Council, to work towards the successful conclusion of these negotiations, adopting the same team spirit. I believe that the debate has shown us that there was a very large majority in favour of these principles. Mrs Andreasen - who is no longer here - tabled a number of amendments, which we cannot go over because we are in a hurry.
I would point out that, from 1 December, there will be some new institutions within the Union: a President of the European Council, a High Representative with completely new powers, and a European External Action Service. We will therefore have to take some extremely quick budgetary decisions if we want the new treaty to come into force on the date set.
Sadly, we have already lost too much time in obtaining an agreement among 27 countries, a ratification of the 27 parliaments, or the 27 nations, to have the Treaty of Lisbon enter into force by the end of the year, and our duty now is to ensure that the transitional provisions can be finalised and applied as quickly as possible.
I will grant Mrs Gardiazábal Rubial that the final agreement will perhaps not be founded on the simplicity that we would like and need, but we shall try in any case to ensure that it satisfies all of the institutions and that it provides the effectiveness, transparency and democratic character that the European Union sorely needs.
President
That concludes the debate.
The vote will take place at 11.00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Georgios Stavrakakis
Firstly, may I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work, completed in a very short space of time. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon is an important step in the unification of the European Union, in strengthening its institutions, and in deepening our European identity. At the same time, the Treaty of Lisbon introduces important changes in the procedure for approving the Community budget. Bearing in mind the idiosyncrasies of the budgetary procedure, we must secure approval of transitional guidelines during forthcoming meetings with the Council, pending approval of the legal texts provided for in the new treaty. These transitional provisions must safeguard equal treatment of the institutions - especially Parliament - in accordance with the new competences which it will acquire under the new treaty. However, in addition to securing approval of transitional provisions, our priority should be the immediate proposal and subsequent approval of the regulation which includes both the Multiannual Financial Framework of the European Union and the Financial Regulation. The European Commission's proposals for both these texts should be submitted as a package which is subject to joint negotiation with the Council.


1. Zimbabwe, in particular the case of Farai Maguwu
President
The next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on Zimbabwe, in particular the case of Farai Maguwu.
Anneli Jäätteenmäki
author. - (FI) Madam President, human rights violations in Zimbabwe have been discussed before by this Parliament. Unfortunately, once again we are forced to address them. This time it is the case of the human rights activist Farai Maguwu. He is simply a prisoner of conscience. He has been arrested and imprisoned for standing up for the human rights of others and then providing the media with information on human rights in the country.
The European Parliament is appealing for his release and for all human rights violations in Zimbabwe to be investigated and, obviously, ended. This case is especially blatant and, being so, particularly unpleasant, in that someone who stands up for the human rights of others himself has to suffer.
Véronique De Keyser
Madam President, behind the Farai Maguwu case lies the whole issue of diamond mining.
Zimbabwe is a voluntary member of the Kimberley Process, which allows signatories to sell diamonds on the international market provided that this trade does not finance armed conflict. However, during the meeting on the Kimberley Process held on 20-21 June in Tel Aviv, the participants were unable to reach an agreement on the following question: should human rights not be integrated into the Kimberley Process too? Several international NGOs have condemned human rights violations in Zimbabwe's diamond mines, violations perpetrated by the security services. One of their informers was Farai Maguwu, the Director of the Centre for Research and Development on human rights, based in Manicaland. That is why Mr Maguwu was arrested on 3 June and why, since then, he has been detained in very difficult conditions, having allegedly breached state security provisions. This is clearly unacceptable.
With this resolution we are calling for the immediate release of the prisoner, the demilitarisation of mining, the inclusion of human rights clauses in the Kimberley Process, and the redistribution of diamond wealth to the people, for example through a dedicated sovereign fund.
We also call on the Commission and the Council to be extremely vigilant as regards issues of good governance and democracy in Zimbabwe and in the dialogue that we are having with this country, which has been characterised by its insufficient progress.
Judith Sargentini
author. - (NL) Madam President, we are dealing with two issues here or, to be precise, one person and one issue. First of all, we are dealing with Farai Maguwu, a human being and a human rights activist, who was arrested in Zimbabwe and then badly mistreated in prison. Secondly, we are dealing with the strange role that the monitor of the Kimberley Process has played. This monitor is supposed to oversee the situation in Zimbabwe and yet he has actually established contacts with the Zimbabwean Government and used information which he received from Mr Maguwu, and thus put Mr Maguwu in an awkward position. Ultimately, then, we are also dealing with the Kimberley Process itself.
In my previous role as lobbyist for development organisations, I participated in the negotiations to bring this system in. It has proven to be a successful system. It has cut off, or decreased the amount of, finance for the wars in Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone and Liberia raised through the sale of diamonds. However, we are now running the risk of the Kimberley system being used to legitimise another practice, and that is human rights violations by regimes. They are not covered by this resolution and that is why we are demanding an amendment. This resolution by Parliament sends out the message that conflict diamonds, or blood diamonds, are all there is to it. After all, all diamonds are mined in appalling conditions. That would be an enormous step forward, because that would enable us to denounce not only the situation in Zimbabwe, but also the already longstanding human rights abuses by the Angolan regime against the Lunda. So far, we have had no success on that score, because the Kimberley system is a collaboration of countries which take a dim view of other countries interfering in their home affairs. However, this signal from the European Parliament could be the first in a series of signals that bring about change there.
Alain Cadec
Madam President, firstly I will say that, compared to this morning, there is finally a little peace and tranquillity in this House!
Ladies and gentlemen, I supported the resolution on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, and in particular the case of Farai Maguwu, because our Parliament cannot remain silent in the face of the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms perpetrated in Zimbabwe for several decades now.
The Director of the Centre for Research and Development, Farai Maguwu, was arrested by the authorities in his country after condemning the human rights violations in the diamond fields. In doing so he was merely exercising his right to freedom of expression and his right to seek information on human rights and fundamental freedoms as a whole. Parliament is calling for his release and for Zimbabwe to respect political rights and fundamental freedoms, in order to allow civil society to express itself without fear.
Furthermore, Zimbabwe must scrupulously adhere to the commitments it made on diamond production in the context of the Kimberley Process, so as to escape the vicious circle of financing armed conflict.
Marie-Christine Vergiat
Madam President, the Chamber is quiet, I would say perhaps a little too quiet, and I for one regret that there are not more of us interested in these issues. To say that the situation in Zimbabwe is tragic is unfortunately an understatement. It is tragic as regards the economy, society and above all democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The last elections took place in a climate of fear. The arrest of Farai Maguwu, the Director of the Centre for Research and Development, following an interview with Mr Chikane, a monitor for the Kimberley Process, is therefore, unfortunately, just one more episode to add to the long list of human rights abuses in that country.
The mining conditions in the Marange diamond fields are particularly dreadful: forced labour, torture, contraband, even murders; everything is under military control and done for the benefit of Mr Mugabe's friends. Time and again these conditions have been condemned by NGOs, including that of Mr Maguwu. This is why it is so surprising that Mr Chikane tabled a positive report concluding that mining at the site meets the requirements laid down by the Kimberley Process. The intersessional meeting in Tel Aviv failed to reach a decision on the follow-up to this report. Commissioner, can you confirm for us that, in the absence of consensus among the Member States, the European Union has indeed opposed the resumption of legal diamond exports from Zimbabwe; that it will continue to do so at the St Petersburg conference; that it will fight for the extension of the Kimberley Process to include respect for all human rights; and that it will do everything in its power to ensure that Member States take the measures necessary to prevent the import of diamonds from Zimbabwe, while such a situation prevails there? Can you help us understand the reasoning behind Mr Chikane's decision to give the green light, when it seems that some of the notes in his dossiers have been seized by secret service agents?
The European Union is the main contributor of humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe. Its attitude in this matter must therefore be exemplary. It must maintain its positions. Can you tell us what the position of the European Union will be in St Petersburg?
Geoffrey Van Orden
author. - Madam President, since being elected in 1999, I have done my utmost to galvanise opposition from this Parliament to the massive catalogue of injustice that Mugabe and his henchmen have inflicted on the people of Zimbabwe. I have to say this is one area where this House speaks with one voice.
Today we are discussing the systematic abuse of workers in the diamond fields of Zimbabwe by government security forces. Zimbabwe is a full member of the Kimberley Process, the informal body that governs the global trade in rough diamonds and which so far has taken little action to stop such abuses. I call on the Kimberley Process to consider tough measures against Zimbabwe for non-compliance and I join the condemnation of the recent arrest of Farai Maguwu, a man of conscience, who dared to expose the violence perpetrated by the Zimbabwean security forces at Chiadzwa.
The Zimbabwean Government must immediately release Mr Maguwu and, for that matter, all other political prisoners, and we should recall that the right to free speech was one of the main commitments made by all parties in last year's global political agreement. At the moment the basic medical and food needs of a large section of the Zimbabwean population are met by international aid. The Zimbabwean Government should use the substantial revenue that diamond mining is likely to generate to create a diamond trust fund to kick-start the economy and to provide the health, education and social funding currently provided by international donors.
Regrettably, Zimbabwe still has a long way to go before we can say that its people live in freedom and democracy and under a respected rule of law. It is time for a dramatic change and the EU and the countries of southern Africa should be bringing more pressure to bear to bring about good governance in Zimbabwe.
Michael Gahler
on behalf of the PPE Group. - (DE) Madam President, the fact that Farai Maguwu was arrested on account of his publication of information on the conditions in the diamond fields of Marange shows who has the real power and where the true holders of power in Zimbabwe are to this day, and that the Government of National Unity, this forced coalition government, in fact only exercises power in the old part, namely in the area where those who are supported by Mr Mugabe live.
For this reason, I think it is important for us to continue to denounce these conditions and, as the European Union, continue to maintain our black list of those who continue to suppress the people in Zimbabwe.
For it is those who arrested Farai Maguwu who are at the same time profiting from the diamond mining and who are pocketing the sales revenue for themselves and not making it available to the people via the country's budget. I therefore hope that we will denounce this situation with a very broad majority and that both the EU and Southern Africa will finally call for an end to these conditions.
Michael Cashman
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, things have improved in Zimbabwe but sadly they have not improved enough. We have seen the crackdown on Mr Maguwu and on other human rights defenders. We have also seen the closure and the arrest of lesbian, gay and bisexual people engaged in HIV prevention and advice.
If I stand up and speak as an Englishman, they will dismiss it. As Europeans, they will dismiss us. But let me say the obvious to the African countries: you know what is happening in Zimbabwe is wrong. Unless you do something about it collectively, you will lose any moral authority in the continent and in the world. We talk about Africa being in your hands, and the future of Africa being in your hands. To stand back and do nothing while people are arrested because they seek to expose human rights breaches and to defend ordinary women and men, to do nothing, Africa, is to be complicit.
Paweł Robert Kowal
Madam President, we are always looking for effective ways to influence countries which are outside the European Union - influence which would bring about a change and a decision to uphold human rights. These ways should never affect the population or humanitarian aid, but we must seek an intelligent way of putting pressure on the regime of President Mugabe which would mean that situations such as that of Farai Maguwu will never happen again.
On the issue of the protection of human rights, this is a question of our fundamental credibility. Here, we must say clearly 'Yea, yea; Nay, nay'. Human rights are being upheld or they are not. We must not content ourselves with small advances. I have the impression that in some of the speeches there was an element of satisfaction with small advances. We have said clearly: the government of President Mugabe does not have any legitimacy and its actions are worthy of condemnation - and we should say this most explicitly.
Cristian Dan Preda
(RO) I too wish to join those who have called in this Chamber for the immediate release of Farai Maguwu. We must condemn the detention conditions he has been subjected to, as well as the failure to respect his basic human rights during the proceedings.
As you are aware, the role of civil society organisations is essential, not only to ensure the success of the Kimberley Process, but also to safeguard democracy in Zimbabwe in general.
However, this country cannot make progress along the road to democracy if human rights activists are forced to keep silent when the international media as well highlight violations that have been committed.
I would also like to stress that the Zimbabwean authorities are duty-bound to investigate impartially human rights violations committed in the diamond fields and to bring those responsible for these actions to justice. The keyword in this case is transparency. Zimbabwe's citizens have the right to be informed, which means that the authorities must fulfil the commitments they have made voluntarily as part of the Kimberley Process.
Ana Gomes
(PT) The case of Farai Maguwu illustrates the brutal repression in Zimbabwe and also the need to extend the scope of the Kimberley Process. Diamonds should not only be certified as free of war crimes, but also of violations against human rights, including those perpetrated by exploitative countries and companies.
The exploitation of diamonds has a role to play in combating poverty and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. According to Global Witness, in 2008 Africa exported USD 393 billion worth of petroleum and minerals, which corresponds to nine times the total amount of aid that the continent received. The fair use of natural resources for the benefit of local people can be crucial in strengthening the rule of law, in promoting social responsibility among companies and, therefore, in guaranteeing human rights.
In this sense it is vital that the European Union adopts mechanisms to combat corruption in the exploitation of minerals, as several Members have argued, particularly through the petition online at www.stopcorruption.eu, which I would like to invite everyone to sign.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Madam President, I am very pleased that the Maguwu case has been raised today, as it is only the tip of the iceberg, and as we so beautifully put it: the rot starts at the top. Robert Mugabe, once a politically skilled fighter for the rights of the black population, is today a brutal dictator and responsible for the collapse of the economy, famines and political terror in his country.
His land reform, which started chaotically, has finally peaked in the expropriation of the white farmers, the country has become a wasteland and 94% of the population is unemployed. At the end of the day, anyone who today arrests activists like Mr Maguwu, threatens them with imprisonment and with torture and also threatens their families, does not meet the criteria that also need to be met in the Kimberley Process.
I agree with the previous speaker that we also need to enshrine the protection of human rights in the Kimberley Process. Instead of making demands and just complaining, we ought to act in a consistent manner and support the other states and impose sanctions in order to put Zimbabwe under pressure, even to the extent of excluding it from the Kimberley Process.
Filip Kaczmarek
(PL) Madam President, we all know that diamonds can be a blessing, but they can also be a curse. We wish Zimbabwe and its people well, and we want the changes in Zimbabwe to lead one day to a complete and constructive transformation. Today, however, we are talking about someone for whom diamonds may become a curse. Farai Maguwu was arrested on charges of publishing information prejudicial to the state. In fact, this often happens - the authorities in some countries do not understand that their reputation is damaged and degraded by the actions of those who violate human rights, and not by those who expose and publicise such violations. Therefore, the release of Farai Maguwu lies in the interest of Zimbabwe itself, and I hope the authorities will listen to our appeal in this matter.
We know of constructive examples of the use of diamonds for development of the right kind. Botswana is one such case. Therefore, our appeal for the income from diamonds to be used for health care, education and social needs is both justified and feasible.
Corina Creţu
(RO) The case we are discussing today, involving the arrest and detention of Farai Maguwu well over a month ago, reflects the lack of progress made in Zimbabwe in terms of respect for human rights. It also draws attention to the serious situation in the diamond fields in the eastern part of the country where the army is frequently accused of committing crimes, acts of violence and serious abuses.
During the last 30 years the Mugabe regime has made Zimbabwe bankrupt and turned it into a humanitarian disaster. Blood diamonds are proof of the cynicism displayed by governing circles lacking scruples and respect for their own citizens.
Zimbabwe is violating the standards stipulated by the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for selling rough diamonds. I believe that it is the European Union's duty to offer more active support to this cooperation body in order to strengthen the moral aspect of the diamond trade in an effort to eliminate the trafficking of diamonds which fund conflicts and armed groups and derive from barbaric exploitation.
We call for the immediate release of Farai Maguwu and we appeal to European diplomacy to consider the option of adopting tough sanctions against the Harare regime in order to make it stop the maltreatment of human rights activists and put an end to the bloody slavery of the diamond fields.
Tunne Kelam
Madam President, it is now less than five weeks since Farai Maguwu was detained by the Zimbabwean authorities. Since then he has been kept in detention in unknown conditions and deprived of his personal rights.
I am happy that this Parliament is united in asking for his immediate release, but I am concerned that his arrest could be a setback to the results of the Tel Aviv meeting and to the Kimberley Process.
As our colleague, Mr Van Orden, mentioned, there is systematic abuse of workers in diamond mines, and the situation in Zimbabwe is very typical, with huge earnings from mineral exports not being reflected in the living conditions of the population, which is kept in poverty and experiences disease. I also agree that African states have an important role to play in improving conditions there. I support dialogue with Zimbabwe by the European Commission on condition that Mr Maguwu be released and the Kimberley Process addressed by the Zimbabwean authorities.
Charles Tannock
Mr President, in the 30 years since Mugabe took power, Zimbabwe has changed from the breadbasket to the begging bowl of southern Africa. The past decade in Zimbabwe has been characterised by the systematic and deliberate impoverishment of most of Zimbabwe's 12 million people. However, some of Mugabe's cronies, particularly the military chiefs, have become exceedingly rich through control of expropriated farmland and mineral resources.
Farai Maguwu has bravely sought to expose extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses by the army, which controls many of Zimbabwe's diamond mines. Inevitably the wealth from these mines is now bankrolling Mugabe's henchmen. Zimbabwe should therefore be refused readmission to the Kimberley Process. The EU should also seek to tighten and extend targeted sanctions against those in Zimbabwe who have enriched themselves by trading in the so-called blood diamonds. Of course Farai Maguwu, who was exercising his fundamental right to free speech, should be released from detention immediately.
Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska
(PL) Madam President, decisions made in 2000, and then approved by the governments of interested states and the international diamond industry in 2003 in Kimberly, were motivated by the worthy idea of ending the trade in blood diamonds. Agreement was reached concerning rebel movements which were using money gained from the sale of diamonds to fund illegal warfare intended to overthrow lawfully elected national authorities. Movements of this type are the cause of the internal destabilisation and conflict which is currently taking place in many countries in Africa.
Therefore, we are disturbed by the reports of violations of human rights and the deaths of many civilians after the army and the police took control of the diamond mine in Marange. We call on the Government of Zimbabwe to apply all necessary measures in accordance with the resolutions of the Kimberly Process to restore the normal operation of the mine. In addition, we condemn the illegal arrests which are being made and demand the release of Farai Maguwu.
Angelika Werthmann
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Kimberley Process is an initiative set up by representatives of governments, the diamond industry and civil society in order to finally put a stop to the international trade in so-called blood diamonds.
Back in 2008, signs of serious breaches of the Kimberley Process rules in the Marange diamond fields in Zimbabwe had already been detected. Farai Maguwu is one of the brave human rights activists who document cases of forced labour, torture and violence in their home country. The government of Zimbabwe voluntarily joined the Kimberley Process; we must insist that the obligations that this entails be fulfilled.
Kristalina Georgieva
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I am very grateful for the discussion that is taking place in this Chamber today.
The Tel Aviv intercessional meeting of the Kimberley Process on 21-24 June this year was very heavily clouded by the arrest of Mr Farai Maguwu. The Commission shares the concerns of the European Parliament and has insisted that Mr Maguwu is treated in full respect of his legal right of defence. The EU delegation is monitoring his situation very closely. It is in contact with Mr Maguwu's lawyers, reflecting our local strategy to support human rights defenders and to reinforce their protection.
We have also called on Zimbabwe to reaffirm its commitment to the role of civil society in the Kimberley Process. While the mandate of the Kimberley Process is focused on preventing the trade of conflict diamonds, it is clear that this process cannot operate in a vacuum and ignore human rights concerns. That has been a very strong message conveyed today in this Chamber - all the more so if we recognise that respect for human rights is a principle that underlies the very aim of the Kimberley Process.
Turning to the Tel Aviv meeting itself, the EU supported the continued implementation of the Swakopmund Decision and the joint work plan to bring mining cooperation in Marangwe into compliance with the rules of the Kimberley Process, including application of the so-called supervised export mechanism. We believe that further engagement with Zimbabwe in the framework of the Kimberley Process offers the best chance, not only to ensure technical compliance in the Marangwe mining area with the Kimberley Process, but also to enhance governance in this critical sector of the economy and ultimately to improve the human rights situation in Marangwe.
It is for these reasons that the EU has called on Zimbabwe to maintain a firm commitment to the Kimberley Process and the joint work plan, so that Marangwe diamonds can, at some point, in due course contribute to Zimbabwe's economic development. It is our goal that the participants of the Kimberley Process and Zimbabwe will intensify their efforts in order to forge consensus on this difficult issue, in the spirit of dialogue and cooperation that has always presided over this process.
Finally, it is important that Parliament is informed that, at a meeting with Zimbabwean Ministers representing the Government of National Unity on 2 July, Baroness Ashton, the High Representative and Vice-President, recalled that the implementation of the global political agreement, which addresses our concern about human rights, the rule of law and democratic principles, is key to achieving normalisation of relations with the EU.
As stated earlier, we attach great importance to Zimbabwe's compliance with the rule of law and human rights. This is an issue we have raised on various occasions and in different fora. The Commission finances, and will continue to finance, a wide range of activities in Zimbabwe, in collaboration with civil society organisations. We will continue to seek and support ways to create and sustain an open political environment where human rights and freedoms are fully respected.
With regard to the position of the Commission on trade with diamonds from Zimbabwe, we called for an audit of the existing diamond stockpile before advancing any discussion on the limited resumption of exports. The EU is invited to the closed session of major stakeholders called by the Chair of the Kimberley Process at the margins of the meeting of the World Diamond Council on 14 July in St Petersburg, where we will advance further discussions on that issue.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Monica Luisa Macovei
in writing. - I join the voices calling for the release of Farai Maguwu. He was arrested for providing information on the Kimberley Process. He turned himself in to the police, after his family members were beaten, arrested, and detained, and staff members of his organisation went into hiding. The arbitrary detention of Mr Maguwu is a message of intimidation that the Government of Zimbabwe is sending to human rights defenders and free citizens in the country, to prevent them from reporting on the realities in Marange. Farai Maguwu must be released from prison immediately. The Government should restore all confiscated computers, files and materials that belong to his organisation, cease the harassment of the organisation's staff, and establish an independent investigation into the circumstances leading to Mr. Maguwu's arrest and detention. The Commission and the Council must address urgently this request to the Government of Zimbabwe and make it a non-negotiable request.


3. Press freedom in Kenya
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on press freedom in Kenya.
Marios Matsakis
author. - Mr President, freedom of the press is synonymous with freedom of expression and democracy. This does not, of course, apply in an ideal fashion in our society, in which media barons as well as government and political party media interference are not unheard of, but is rather prominent in some western countries, not excluding the USA and some EU Member States. However, at least as far as legislation is concerned, the media in our societies are given the theoretical protection of the law they need to function as near properly as possible.
This is where we beg to differ with the Kenyan Government, which is introducing legislative measures that can be used for possible repression and persecution of the press by the state. We therefore call on the Kenyan authorities to reconsider their stance on the matter and give their mass media the legislative freedom they need in order to try, at least, to function as democratically as possible. The Kenyan Government must understand and accept that the protection of the press is essential for their country's road to betterment of living standards for its citizens. We hope and trust that the plea we have made through this resolution will not be seen as interference but as friendly advice to the Government of Kenya, that it will be taken seriously into consideration and that there will be wiser reconsideration of what they have been doing so far.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
Mr President, Kenya has been in the throes of a serious political crisis for a long time. The current President, Mr Kibaki, is implementing measures which are clearly intended to restrict the freedom of speech and of the press. On 2 January 2009, he violated the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter of Human Rights by sanctioning amendments to what is known as the Kenya Communications Bill of 1998, giving the national authorities new rights, including the right to dismantle broadcasting and communications equipment, as well as to control and alter the content of mass media publications. The international community unanimously declared this to be a further step towards media censorship in Kenya.
Moreover, in spite of earlier commitments arising from agreements signed to establish Kenya's grand coalition government, the President failed to consult the Prime Minister in office regarding either this decision or any further decisions. This exacerbated the crisis in Kenya, which had already lasted for over a year and which had claimed around 1 000 victims and left 350 000 people homeless. The European Union cannot stand by while fundamental freedoms are being blatantly violated.
We should welcome the Kenyan President's assurances that the amendments will be revised and that all political powers will be consulted on this matter, in order to give these amendments a new, democratic quality and ensure the broad support of Kenyan society. The European Union must support these measures and monitor them in detail, fostering pluralism during the process of building a civil society. At the same time, the Kenyan authorities should take stronger action to introduce a state of normality in the country, including the creation of a special committee, consisting of local and international experts, to punish those guilty of violence and of causing the crisis last year. There is a chance that these measures will stabilise the internal situation and prevent a humanitarian disaster, which inevitably threatens this Eastern African country with a population of ten million.
Colm Burke
author. - Mr President, I regret the signing of the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill by President Kibaki. This act disregards the rights to freedom of expression and press freedom as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and echoed by other international conventions, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
This act would give considerable powers to the Kenyan Information Minister to raid media houses deemed to be a threat to national security and to dismantle broadcasting equipment. The act will also give the state the power to regulate contents to be aired and published by electronic and print media respectively. I welcome, however, President Kibaki's recent move to revise this media law and his gesture to consider amendments to legislation proposed by members of the media.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, as stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I call on the Kenyan Government to initiate a stakeholder consultation in order to build consensus on how to better regulate the communications industry without interfering with press freedom and without infringing rights contained within the Universal Declaration.
Finally, I would like to underline the need to adjust the culture of impunity in Kenya in order to bring those responsible for the post-election violence a year ago to justice. I call for the setting-up of an independent commission consisting of local and international legal experts who would carry out investigations and prosecutions into the violent events following the flawed elections in December 2007.
Erik Meijer
Mr President, Kenya has a violent past. After the Second World War, when Europe slowly came to accept that the independence of African countries was eventually inevitable, Kenya was emphatically excluded, as was the country we now know as Zimbabwe. According to colonial rulers, there were too many foreign colonists and too many foreign economic interests in those countries to be able to leave them in the hands of the predominantly black populations.
Unlike other West African countries, independence in Kenya did not come about peacefully, but only following a protracted and violent struggle by the independence movement Mau Mau. This need for a violent struggle has laid the foundations for continued violence and intimidation. The victors mainly belong to one major tribe, the Kikuyu. Other population groups have always been kept in opposition, where necessary on the strength of rigged election results. The latest presidential elections proved once again that a non-Kikuyu cannot become President, not even if the majority of voters vote for him.
Thanks to a compromise, the opposition candidate is now Prime Minister and domestic peace seems to be restored. While, out of the two African countries with rigged presidential elections, Zimbabwe is considered the country with the bad compromise, Kenya has been praised as the country with the good compromise. For years, Western Europe and America considered Kenya to be a major success story. It was a country with relative prosperity, freedom for international businesses, friendship with the West and attention for tourists. Kenya has now lost that success-story image. A food shortage and a new press law have made for renewed tension. This food shortage is partly attributable to the fact that the President, in exchange for the construction of the port, has leased out 40 000 hectares of farm land to the oil state Qatar for food supplies.
The press law appears to be a lever which the President uses to restrict the power of the coalition government and to eliminate critical opponents. This is all the more shocking, given that this law came about without the Prime Minister even being consulted. The coalition compromise between the President and the Prime Minister is in jeopardy if the President is given the capability of bypassing the Prime Minister, restricting the role of the government and protecting his own role against the critical press.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, until last year's violence, Kenya had a reputation as one of Africa's politically more stable countries and had a tradition of a relatively free and robust press.
President Kibaki needs to realise that political stability and a free press are mutually reinforcing. This restriction of freedom of speech, as proposed, is unbecoming for a country led by a man who came to power promising a new era of openness and transparency. Unfortunately, it seems that many senior politicians in Kenya have still not developed a sufficiently thick skin to handle the inevitable barbs of a free press and a democracy. I hope that President Kibaki will take our advice and change his mind. That would reassure us of Kenya's purported commitment to a free society under a power-sharing coalition government. It would also strengthen Kenya's case for moral authority and leadership in an unstable region.
I welcome the President's pledge now to consider amendments to this bill and to consult more widely with the media. Given that Prime Minister Raila Odinga and the ODM, his party, are vigorously opposed to this legislation, it is also vital for the stability of the Government that it does not become even more of an inflammatory and divisive political issue.
Catherine Stihler
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this joint motion for a resolution on press freedom in Kenya. A year ago, like many others, I was dismayed and disappointed that, after flawed presidential elections in Kenya, street demonstrations led to riots and ethnic clashes that spread across the country, killing more than a thousand people and leaving another 350 000 people homeless. Those responsible for the post-election violence a year ago must be brought to justice and a period of reconciliation and tolerance is now essential for Kenya.
In this context, it is very bad news that, on Friday 2 January 2009, President Kibaki signed the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill 2008, which amends the Kenya Communications Act of 1998. This bill flies in the face of press freedom and disregards international conventions signed up to by the Kenyan Government. Two sections effectively introduce direct media censorship by the Government. Section 88 gives the Information Minister considerable powers to raid and dismantle broadcasting equipment from a media house that is deemed to be a threat to national security. Section 46 gives the state the power to regulate contents to be aired and published by both electronic and print media. Within Kenya, the bill has been opposed by journalists, by Prime Minister Odinga and by the ODM, and its passing highlights a serious lack of consultation within the current grand coalition. I regret the passing of this bill and urge that any revision of the media law takes account of the many, many reservations expressed.
Ewa Tomaszewska
Mr President, as a member of Solidarność, and someone who has experienced martial law in Poland, I know that freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The Kenyan Government signed and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. These conventions include the right to freedom of speech.
Today, the Eastern Africa Journalists Association informs us that the government intends to introduce censorship in Kenya. I hope that President Kibaki will refrain from any amendments to legislation concerning the media, which could infringe the freedom of speech. I call on the Kenyan authorities to relinquish their plans to introduce censorship, to build consensus in order to foster the freedom of the press and the public communications sector. I hope that the rights of religious and ethnic minorities will be respected in Kenya. A year ago, over a thousand people died during protests linked to the elections and 350 000 people fled their homes. I hope that those responsible for these incidents will be justly punished.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
(PL) Mr President, even if it is true that some of the private media in Kenya helped to instigate riots following the emotional election campaign, this is no justification for restricting the freedom of speech.
The attack on the freedom of the press in Kenya also involved the violation of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. It is worth stressing that the new legislation was adopted by 25 out of the 220 members of parliament. This is an utterly inconceivable situation. What is worse is that, until that point, Kenya had boasted one of the most developed and pluralistic press networks in the whole of Africa. This will change after the new legislation is implemented, which will allow special services to interfere in the activities of the media, close down editorial sections and control the printed or spoken word. Restricting the freedom of the media sector in the name of national security can only have the opposite effect to the one intended.
Laima Liucija Andrikien
(LT) Why are we concerned with freedom of the press in Kenya? Why is the European Parliament debating this issue as a case of human rights violation as a matter of urgency?
Firstly because freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, as laid down in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Kenya is a signatory. Therefore, it, like other signatory countries, must not only observe its spirit, but follow it to the letter.
The demonstrations which took place almost a year ago after the Presidential elections in Kenya and grew into riots and ethnic conflict, in which more than 1 000 people were killed and tens of thousands were left homeless, is the strongest argument for not allowing similar events to be repeated. Therefore, the Kenyan Government and President should act together and honour their own obligations to respect freedom of the press, speech and assembly. In addition - and this is particularly important - they should fight impunity and call to account those who are responsible for the riots which took place a year ago.
Marios Matsakis
Mr President, while we are debating humanitarian issues and freedom of the press in third countries, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, according to media reports from Gaza, the offices of the UN which were bombarded earlier on today by the Israeli forces are completely ablaze and all the UN humanitarian aid which was stored there, much of it sent by the EU, has been completely destroyed. The same fate has befallen the offices of Reuters and of other international journalists in Gaza. I wish to record that I share the view of the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, currently in Israel, who is reportedly completely outraged at the Israeli authorities.
President
Mr Matsakis, thank you for this declaration, but I am not supposed, in theory, to accept it because the rules require that when you ask to speak by catching my eye, it must be on the subject under discussion, which is, I would remind you, the freedom of the press in Kenya, even though the events to which you have referred are indeed dramatic, as everybody agrees.
Leopold Józef Rutowicz
(PL) Mr President, the European Parliament's Resolution on press freedom in Kenya highlights an important issue. Dictatorships begin with restrictions on the freedom of the press and information, as well as civil rights. I hope that this process will be halted by international and internal action. I think that President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga will take appropriate action. The Resolution, which I support, will certainly help the process of democratisation in Kenya.
Janusz Onyszkiewicz
(PL) Mr President, during the Communist period, both in Poland and in other countries, one of the provisions of the criminal code stipulated that any person disseminating information that could lead to civil disorder would be punished. This kind of provision was exceptionally useful as a stick for beating not only individuals but also, and above all, the press. Today, we see similar intentions behind the legislative endeavours in Kenya. One cannot state, as an argument or a threat, that the press must be muzzled as it might cause trouble in the country. That is no justification or explanation for this kind of censorship. The press is there to provide people with information, which is a real cornerstone of democracy.
Vladimír Špidla
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by emphasising that freedom of expression, including television and radio, is one of the pillars on which the EU rests. This freedom is among the key European values and it cannot be called into question.
The 'Communication Act' of 2008 which became law in Kenya on 2 January 2009, includes some points which, in our opinion, might encroach upon media freedom. We therefore noticed with satisfaction the recent decision of President Kibaki on 7 January to revise some disputed sections of this Act. We are delighted that Mr Kibaki authorised the Minister for Information and Communications and the Attorney General to meet with media representatives in order to propose changes to this law that would eliminate these fears.
Freedom of expression and freedom of the press form part of public affairs administration in the broadest sense of the term and this, in itself, is at the centre of EU development strategy. I frankly take the view that a free and responsible press is an essential precondition for democracy and the legal state, which are integral components for sustainable development. Only on the basis of dialogue will the media and the Kenyan Government be able to develop a common understanding and build mutual respect. Thus, the European Commission looks forward with interest to the results of the various meetings which will take place in Kenya between the parties involved and it hopes that relevant parties will reach agreement on appropriate recommendations for proposals to amend the media law.
As far as the post-election violence is concerned, the Commission welcomes the report of the investigative commission on the violence (the Waki Report). It appreciates the undertaking of the Kenyan Government to implement the report recommendations, including the establishment of a special tribunal to ensure that the people responsible for the violence will have to answer for their acts.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place immediately.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Sebastian Valentin Bodu
At the start of 2009, democracy in Kenya suffered in the form of a blow against the freedom of the press. President Mwai Kibaki has signed a law, although he has subsequently had a change of heart, which grants the Kenyan authorities the right to carry out raids on editorial offices, tap journalists' telephone calls and check the content of broadcasts on the grounds of 'national security'. As if these abuses were not enough, the law also stipulates huge fines and terms of imprisonment for reporters found guilty of 'anti-government' practices. Although President Kibaki has ordered these provisions to be amended a week later, we are not aware as to what these 'amendments' envisage.
This law, in its initial form, is a reminder of the dark days of dictatorship, when the Kenyan press was brought to its knees. Kenya is currently a democracy and I firmly believe that no one, President Kibaki included, wants to return to those times. An attack against press freedom is an attack against democracy. The international community must continue to put pressure on the Kenyan authorities to treat civil liberties responsibly, especially press freedom.
Marianne Mikko
Ladies and gentlemen, Kenya is acting in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Such fundamental pillars of democracy as freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not respected. The free press is in serious danger.
State control and censorship were sections of a draft amendment to a communications bill. Through the ill-considered action of President Kibaki, these have now become law.
It is unheard of that the government should possess the right to organise raids on the editorial offices of newspapers and broadcasters and check what is broadcast and in what form. That is far from a democratic society.
It is essential that the existing legal provisions should be amended. It is possible to regulate the press without endangering freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. This must be done as soon as possible.