1. Recent attacks on religious minorities in Egypt and in Malaysia
President
The next item is the debate on the motion for a resolution on the recent attacks against religious minorities in Egypt and Malaysia.
Marietje Schaake
author. - Mr President, in the week of Egyptian Orthodox Christmas, an attack took place killing and wounding 20 Coptic Egyptians. Although the attack can be seen as a criminal act of individuals, various other troubling incidents require our ongoing focus on respect for all minorities in Egypt.
Violence and hatred cannot be accepted in the name of religion. People have a universal right to freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Ethnic and religious diversity asks for a vigilant society that is able to reconcile differences in open debate, a society where people of any background or conviction know that their freedoms are guaranteed.
An open society can only be realised when the separation of religion and state is implemented in the constitution and throughout the system of government. Security measures cannot be the only means to manage a pluralist society. Yet state emergency laws have been in place in Egypt for the past 28 years. A free debate is perhaps the most powerful medicine against extremism and violence. Therefore, freedom of expression, both online and offline, can be seen as the Egyptian Government's best tool to resolve tensions in society.
It is therefore very difficult to understand or accept that around 30 activists, politicians and bloggers were arrested by government forces while travelling to the southern Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi to express their condolences to the families of those killed during the sectarian violence. The arrests are a particularly striking example of what has become a pattern of the Egyptian Government's interference in citizens' rights to freedom of expression.
Something is desperately wrong when people are treated like criminals merely for attempting to show sympathy and solidarity with fellow countrymen. In too many cases, the argument of maintaining public order is abused. Since 2008, Egyptians have been unable to get an unregistered phone line, but the control is not total. New rules are now in force, under which users of Wi-Fi have to pay for a connection, for which they need to provide an e-mail address to have a password and a username sent. This allows for active control of users by the government. Moreover, a draft law is under debate in the parliament about net regulation, providing for prison sentences for 'publication of multimedia content without government permission'.
Yet the Egyptian Constitution says, 'freedom of expression or freedom of opinion is guaranteed. Every individual has the right to express his opinion and to publicise it verbally or in writing or by photography or by other means within the limits of the law'. Self-criticism and constructive criticism are the guarantee for the safety of the national structure.
I urge the Egyptian Government to refrain from introducing emergency laws limiting fundamental freedoms in light of the sectarian tensions present. An adequate response to crimes committed in the name of religion is only appropriate. However, this should not be used as a reason to repress the population as a whole, with laws limiting free speech and expression. Only when fundamental freedoms are safeguarded by the Constitution and all layers of legislation are free will an open society in Egypt be possible. The Egyptian Government should lead its citizens on this road to freedom, and Europe should be its strongest partner in this.
Fiorello Provera
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution that I have tabled is in response to some tragic events which have recently taken place in Egypt and in other countries of the world - just yesterday in Nigeria - and is intended to bring to this House's attention an increasingly serious and intolerable situation whereby members of the Christian community are being persecuted and killed.
This is not a resolution against the Egyptian Government, which has acted to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice; rather, it is a time to reflect on a vast and concerning issue. Every year, thousands of Christians are killed around the world, in Vietnam, North Korea, China, Nigeria, Malaysia, and millions of others are persecuted in the most diverse ways for their faith on a daily basis. These attacks are increasing in number and in virulence, amid silence or indifference, and they warrant urgent action.
First of all, everyone must make a commitment to change the climate of religious hatred which is spreading and to encourage tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Europe is well acquainted with the tragedy of wars in which, for centuries, Catholics and Protestants have fought against one another, not to mention the Jewish Holocaust. Precisely because of its history, Europe must commit itself on this front.
Another initiative could be to examine national laws within the context of which we find rules which persecute Christians or other religious minorities. The cooperation of non-governmental organisations could be very useful in this project, but vigilance is also required to ensure that, where a right to religious freedom exists, it is actually implemented.
This debate could be an opportunity to launch the proposal to draft a European Parliament report on religious freedom in the world.
Mario Mauro
author. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, religious freedom is, in fact, the subject of this resolution. It is therefore not an identity crusade or an attempt to cause problems for this or that government, but a denunciation of the fact that, in today's world, people are dying because they believe in Christ or are being discriminated against because their faith is different from someone else's.
All the political groups therefore agree that there is a problem concerning religious freedom and that it needs to be addressed seriously and firmly within the international community.
We therefore ask the Council and the Commission and, above all, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, to pay particular attention to the situation of minorities, including the Christian minority, so that initiatives aimed at promoting dialogue and respect between communities are supported and undertaken, urging all the religious authorities to encourage tolerance and to prevent episodes of hatred and violence from occurring.
Véronique De Keyser
Mr President, the incident that took place in Egypt could undoubtedly have happened elsewhere. A car passes by the doorway of a Coptic church, shots are fired into the crowd. The outcome: seven deaths (six Copts and one police officer). The Egyptian authorities react quickly. The public prosecutor decides - and I quote - that the three accused of the events in Nag Hammadi will be tried before the State Emergency Security Court on a charge of premeditated murder.
In Malaysia, it is the name Allah that the Christian and Muslim communities argue about, a dispute that results in the ransacking and pillaging of churches.
These news stories, which could be described as commonplace, have impacts elsewhere, throughout the world, including in Europe. The rise in religious intolerance and fanaticism jeopardises a fundamental freedom, freedom of belief for all, whether they are religious or agnostic. All over the world, crimes are being perpetrated against minorities, be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim. All over the world, too, non-religious men and women are being killed or imprisoned because they do not respect the rites, dogmas or religious practices from which they have freed themselves.
As a non-religious person, I firmly support this resolution, which is an appeal for tolerance and not a stigmatisation of Egypt or Malaysia. However, leaving aside the cases that have been mentioned, I would like to point out the responsibility of a state that is mindful of its citizens' right to freedom of expression. I believe that a secular state, by virtue of its structure, is the greatest guarantee of the space required for a diversity of beliefs. This is the form in which a state can best protect its citizens and promote a dialogue between its communities.
Ryszard Antoni Legutko
author. - Mr President, the information about violence against Christians in Egypt and Malaysia is just the tip of the iceberg. There are three points I want to raise.
First, Christians have become the victims of brutal violence in many countries of the world, not just two. Second, Christians have become the single most persecuted religious group in the world. The numbers are astounding - in the millions, not thousands or hundreds of thousands. Third, the reaction of European societies, European governments and the EU has, so far, been unsatisfactory: timid, faint-hearted, pusillanimous, politically correct, or no reaction at all.
We must act resolutely, or else those who persecute Christians will think they have our tacit blessing. Do we really want this?
Heidi Hautala
author. - (FI) Mr President, it is regrettable that there are so many different conflicts in the world dressed up in the guise of religion. In this connection, it has to be said that there are very many different fundamentalist trends in the world in connection with the Christian, Islamic and other religions. Personally, I have encountered fewer of these fundamentalist aspirations with Buddhism. In any case, it is important that the European Parliament adopts a position when these kinds of violent episodes between religious groups occur.
I would like to say, however, that yesterday it was brought to Parliament's attention that 33 human rights defenders were arbitrarily arrested when they tried to support the Coptic Christians referred to in this resolution and who were suffering violence against them. I would now like to say to the Egyptian authorities that we need to ensure that people are not prevented in this way from coming to the defence of others. We must insist that human rights defenders in other situations are not imprisoned or treated unjustly. In this case, it is an undeniable fact that these 33 defenders of the Copts were treated inhumanely in prison. They were kept in inhumane conditions.
I hope that in future, Parliament will always give its attention to cases whenever there is violence against any religious group, and not just concentrate on the persecution of Christians.
(Applause)
Bernd Posselt
Mr President, Tunisia, Egypt and Malaysia have a great tradition of tolerance. Evidence of this is provided by names like Tunku Abdul Rahman, the founder of the independent state of Malaysia, or President Sadat, whose speech here in the European Parliament was like a Magna Carta for Christian-Islamic coexistence.
This is precisely why we must support the governments of these countries in their fight against Islamic extremism and anti-Christian attacks. Of course, we in Europe, as a mainly Christian continent, have a special obligation to stand up for Christians throughout the world, because if we do not do so, who will?
However, this is clearly about the freedom of religion itself and I would like, for example, to thank the Malaysian Government for the fact that His Majesty, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and the Prime Minister, made their position on this matter clear on 9 January. We wish them success in their fight for religious tolerance, for which this country was and still is a shining example, and it is something that, as partners who can speak openly on matters to do with human rights, we must preserve in Egypt, Tunisia and Malaysia.
Peter van Dalen
Mr President, freedom of religion is an essential element of human rights. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is that Christians have a particularly hard time in many countries where the faith of Islam dominates. That is the case, amongst other places, in Egypt. Coptic Orthodox Christians, but also Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians and Jews are placed at a disadvantage in an institutionalised way in Egypt. Muslims who convert to Christianity, for example, are oppressed. This can be seen from their identity papers, which continue to state that they are Muslims, as religious disaffiliation is legally prohibited.
Over the last 10 to 20 years, specifically, violence against Copts has grown enormously. More than 100 attacks, with thousands of victims, have already been reported. The Egyptian Government's attitude, in my view, is spineless. Three men have been taken into custody, but, generally speaking, the violence against Christians is tolerated. I call on the Council and the Commission to engage Egypt directly in dialogue in order to ensure that the government there takes a different approach. If Cairo refuses to do so, I think that needs to have consequences for our bilateral relations with Egypt.
Joe Higgins
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - Mr President, all who are committed to democratic rights and freedom of religious expression will condemn outright the murder of Christians in Egypt and also the firebomb attacks on Christian churches in Malaysia. We should also note the growing numbers of attacks on religious minorities in Europe itself and equally condemn that.
In Malaysia, the tactic of divide and rule on racial and religious lines has long been used by various elements of the economic and ruling elites. The present National Front government is guilty of hypocrisy in this regard: while publicly proclaiming a 'One Malaysia' policy claiming to embrace all religions and minorities, it manoeuvres behind the scenes, using religious and racial divisions to try and bolster its own position among the majority Muslim Malay population, as it did in relation to the 'Allah' ruling.
There are also huge divisions economically in Malaysia. It is the most unequal society in South-East Asia. The current government rules on the basis of crony capitalism. This is the result, with exploitation rife in the workplace and trade union rights severely limited. The best background for religious freedom and democracy in Egypt and Malaysia and elsewhere is, indeed, economic justice and democracy, where wealth and power are in the hands of the big majority of working people and the poor and removed from major corporations and crony capitalists.
Daniël van der Stoep
(NL) Mr President, yesterday, a terrible political trial began in the Netherlands against the leader of our party, Geert Wilders. Mr Wilders, as a Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the Party for Freedom in the Dutch Parliament, is being prosecuted for expressing his opinion. Mr Wilders is being persecuted by the leftist elite because he warns the Netherlands, Europe and the world about a fascist ideology that goes by the name of Islam. This is an outrageous disgrace!
Mr President, the Islamification of the Netherlands and of Europe threatens Europe's Judeo-Christian and humanistic culture, and where many, including in this House, bend over backwards and allow the tsunami of Islamification to wash over them, the Party for Freedom fights for European culture. Mr President, the barbaric acts that have taken place in Malaysia, Egypt and in many other places around the world, as just this week in Nigeria, are the result of the intolerant and fascist ideology known as Islam. In Islamic countries, non-Muslims are systematically humiliated and murdered. The events in Malaysia and Egypt cannot be regarded as isolated incidents, but have their origin in the ideology that demands respect but does not give it. This Parliament can ensure that these terrible events never take place in Europe by taking up the fight, alongside the Party for Freedom, against the Islamification of Europe. We ask all of you to do so.
Filip Kaczmarek
(PL) Mr President, quite often in Parliament, we talk about different phobias and their detrimental social effects. I am thinking of xenophobia and homophobia. Unfortunately, these two cases do not exhaust the list of phobias. There is also a phenomenon called 'Christianophobia' - a phobia of Christianity. Just as in the case of other phobias, the social effects here are also detrimental and sometimes tragic, and it is precisely for this reason that we should take up cases of violations of the rights of Christians in different places around the world.
We take up cases involving followers of different religions, and even of people who do not profess any religion. Christians, too, must not be deprived of our care. We do this because religious freedom is one of the European Union's fundamental values. It is precisely for this reason that we condemn and will condemn every form of violence, discrimination and intolerance towards the leaders or adherents of any religion. Violence perpetrated because of the beliefs of the victim is abominable and there is no doubt that it deserves our criticism.
Konrad Szymański
(PL) Mr President, religious freedom is a right which has been acknowledged in international and European conventions on human rights for over 50 years. At the same time, we have, for many years, been facing a rising wave of religious hatred, which has most often affected Christians all over the world. The place of anti-Christian Communism has today been taken principally by militant Islam. Egypt and Malaysia have constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, but under pressure from radical Islamic circles, the religious freedom of Christians is not being sufficiently protected by the governments there.
The European Union, which has new instruments of foreign policy at its disposal, must become involved, to a greater degree, in opposing Christophobia, which is the source of beatings, looting and murders. It is only ideological prejudice which causes the European Union to do this, today, with hesitation. At stake is our credibility.
Bogusław Sonik
(PL) Mr President, I would like to support the idea of my fellow Member, Mr Provera, who said that a report should be drawn up on religious freedom. I would like to remind everyone that in the previous parliamentary term, Mr Mauro and I submitted a proposal to draft a report on the situation of Christians in countries where they are a minority, in countries where Islam is the dominant religion. Unfortunately, the Bureau did not adopt the proposal, but perhaps such a report would be worth writing. Here, I make the same proposal again.
The resolution we are adopting today should give a clear message. The Coptic minority makes up 10% of Egypt's population, but even if it were only 0.5%, the role of the European Parliament is to react, especially in a situation in which human rights are being violated so drastically.
I read carefully the letter sent to Mr Buzek by the Marshal of the People's Assembly. In the letter, he gives his assurance that the events of which I have spoken were isolated incidents. I find this difficult to believe. The Copts have been persecuted in Egypt for many years. Let us try, this time, to ensure that our help for this oppressed minority does not end with empty declarations.
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Mr President, it is not only Egypt, and it is not only Malaysia, but also Sudan, Nigeria and many other countries in Africa, many countries in Asia and many societies which treat Christians as a necessary evil, and sometimes as an enemy. Let us not hide these facts, let us not act like an ostrich, which buries its head in the sand. This is a real problem, and the Parliament of a Christian Europe, Christian traditions and a Christian heritage must speak about it.
However, we should also beat our own breast. A moment ago, the Member who spoke before me rightly spoke of Parliament's sins of omission in the previous term. I recall the debate we had a few weeks ago, when we rightly condemned the attacks and the oppression experienced by the Uighur Muslim minority in China. However, at that time, certain political groups rejected amendments which were intended to emphasise that Christians are suffering in China, too, and are the victims of discrimination. We cannot allow a situation in which we defend some religious minorities but defend others less or not at all.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
(FI) Mr President, we have heard worrying news from a number of sources about crimes against Christians in Egypt and Malaysia. With regard to Malaysia, I would first of all like to say that we are deeply concerned about the attacks on churches in what has traditionally been a tolerant and moderate country.
Secondly, I wish to mention the exemplary work of Islamic NGOs on behalf of religious tolerance. The Malaysian Prime Minister's statements about using the name of Allah triggered a show of public discontent targeted at Christian communities. The exemplary attitude on the part of Islamic NGOs and an uncompromising public stance on the statements by the Prime Minister have nevertheless calmed the situation. It is unfortunate that we did not have it recorded in our final resolution, because in my view, we pay attention too rarely here to positive situations. Should not Muslims also be lauded when there is cause to do so?
Religious tolerance needs to be promoted both by those that hold political power and at grassroots level. It is equally important to realise that there have been failures as it is to acknowledge progress and offer support for it.
Dominique Baudis
(FR) Mr President, the acts of fanatic criminals, who have killed some Christians in Egypt, cannot be ascribed to an entire population and its government. It would be unfair to hold Egypt and the Egyptians responsible for this appalling massacre, for which the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
We must not confuse the acts of one criminal with the policy of an entire country! Let us not tar fanatics and an entire population with the same brush. Finally, by seeking to intervene between the Coptic Christians and their fellow Muslim citizens, we are adding fuel to the fire of the extremists, who want to portray Eastern Christians as agents of the West.
László Tőkés
(HU) There is very recent news that a few days ago, the Egyptian regime arrested several Coptic rights activists who were travelling to the site of the crimes that took place at the Nag Hammadi settlement in order to defend and support the Coptic Christian communities there who had seen several of their members murdered on Christmas Day. The Egyptian authorities, partial towards the Muslim majority, are trying to downplay the violent acts committed against the Coptic minority, and are now blocking the Christians' lawful self-defence with discriminatory bias towards one side of the issue. The United States administration has unequivocally spoken up against this. Knowing that the Coptic Christian community, who are considered native Egyptians, have, for over 1 500 years, often been subjected to cruel oppression, the European Union must step up in its defence even more forcefully and unambiguously than it is doing at present.
Anna Záborská
(SK) Thank you for bringing attention again to the breaches of religious freedom in certain countries, just like back in 2007 and 2008. I wonder whether it is the EU's weakness or indifference that prevents it from promoting the observance of human rights in this area more consistently. We keep hearing the same complaints and proposing the same measures.
Egypt and Malaysia are among those countries where Christians live in extremely dangerous conditions, face persecution, expulsion from their homes, abductions and murders, and their churches are being closed. This is happening from the Maghreb to Iran, in India, China, Pakistan, and many other countries. Christians are usually persecuted by extremist groups. However, this presents a danger to all Christians, Jews and Muslims. I request that representatives of the EU and delegations of the European Parliament make use of every opportunity to improve dialogue, religious tolerance and respect, and the coexistence of different cultures.
Mitro Repo
(FI) Mr President, I am especially worried about the situation in Egypt because of the historical, ethnic and political background connected with it. Actually, the Coptic Christians are still a considerable minority. In Egypt, around 10% of the population, eight million, are Coptic Christians, and it is for that precise reason that they are a former majority. They are proud of this and also of their oriental Christian tradition. This is why the provocation that occurred at the Christmas celebrations last January was particularly blatant and premeditated. Furthermore, many Copts have been pressurised through violence to change their beliefs and there have been cases of rape and other crimes.
The situation in Egypt is a very bad example for other countries where there is a chance of the same sort of spiral of revenge taking place, and that is precisely why the EU has to be vigilant, intervene immediately when there is trouble, and stress the importance of peaceful dialogue between religious groups.
Ivo Vajgl
(SL) When a murder takes place, in particular, a religiously motivated one, we naturally can do little but recoil in horror and condemn it.
However, this new incident and this new crime in the Middle East is, in fact, evidence of general developments and ongoing intolerance of religious freedom and lack of respect for those who are different. That is to say, there are many quarters where religious values are not respected.
The reason why the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has proposed that this debate be postponed, or rather, that debates on the respect of human rights and religious freedoms in Egypt and Malaysia be held separately, is that we need to deal with this issue with a great deal of sensitivity and address every country individually. Egypt is certainly not one of the worst examples of religious intolerance. Quite the contrary.
Charles Tannock
Mr President, sadly, there has been a general climate in the Islamic world of increasing jihadi militancy aimed at non-Muslim communities in their midst - in particular, and more often than not, this means the Christians.
The Copts, who represent one of the oldest Christian churches in the world, have a large diaspora in London, which I represent. Their leaders have come to me and complained of a worsening situation, regrettably, in Egypt, orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. In spite of the best efforts by President Mubarak's government to protect them, matters have deteriorated.
We witness a similar story with the Assyrian Christians in Iraq, the Christians of Palestine and Pakistan, and now, as we see for the first time, even in Malaysia.
This House has - for too long, in my view - ignored Christian minority rights in the rest of the world, but they look to the European Union and to the United States for protection. So I welcome this resolution.
Gerard Batten
Mr President, the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities is growing in Islamic countries. Christians who have lived in countries such as Egypt and in the Mediterranean area for almost 2 000 years are increasingly being persecuted and driven out of their ancestral homelands. This is because of the growing power of intolerant fundamentalist and extremist Islamist ideology - Islamo-fascism.
The persecution of Christian minorities and others across the Islamic world is vastly under-reported by the West's media. The media should not only report the persecution as it happens but they should explain to the general public the reasons why it is happening. They should explain who is doing this, namely Muslim fanatics, and why they are doing it - because of the intolerant and violent fault lines in Islamic ideology.
Democratic governments worldwide should put maximum diplomatic pressure on countries such as Egypt to suppress this intolerable persecution.
Neelie Kroes
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is deeply shocked and saddened by what happened on Coptic Christmas Eve in Nag Hammadi in southern Egypt, the tragic deaths of six Copts and a Muslim policeman in a drive-by shooting.
We are positive that the authorities took rapid action to find and arrest those suspected of committing this awful crime, and a thorough investigation and bringing those responsible to justice will send a clear signal that violence based on religious influence is not acceptable in Egyptian society.
Egypt's Constitution provides for freedom of belief and free practice of religion. However, we do hear complaints of discrimination against the Copts and against other religious minorities such as the Bahá'í in the workplace and by the judicial system. We are aware of difficulties encountered by several Christian converts, such as Maher El-Gohary and Mohammed Hegazy, in Egyptian courts. We raised those issues in our regular political dialogue with Egypt.
We understand that the government is seeking to address some of the grievances of the Copts, for instance, by removing the obstacles that delay and limit the building and refurbishment of churches. We welcome and encourage such moves and urge the government to identify and tackle the root causes of religious tensions in Egyptian society and to end all forms of discrimination against those belonging to other religions.
The acts of vandalism against churches in Malaysia following a High Court ruling on the use of the word 'Allah' give rise to serious concerns. The government, as well as the opposition, including the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party and 130 Muslim NGOs, have all strongly condemned those attacks. The government has increased security measures to safeguard all places of worship and has also reconfirmed its commitment to protect Malaysia's social and religious harmony and a culture of religious and ethnic diversity.
The Malaysian Federal Constitution states that Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practised in peace and in harmony in any part of the Federation.
We encourage the authorities to initiate as soon as possible an all-encompassing inter-faith dialogue with all religious beliefs to promote mutual understanding so that Malaysia can continue to develop peacefully in ethnic and social harmony. In that regard, the Malaysian Home Ministry has a particular responsibility to explain thoroughly and objectively to its citizens the issue at stake.
We strongly condemn all acts of intolerance against any person because of his religion of belief wherever they occur. Unfortunately, no country is immune from this. We call on public authorities to fully protect all religious communities, including Christians, from discrimination and from repression.
The Commission gives high priority to freedom of religion or belief as central tenets of the EU's human rights policy by raising the issue in political dialogue with countries where the problem persists, by supporting local human rights projects and by actively promoting freedom of religion or belief at the UN forums.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 12.00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Carlo Casini
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in voting in favour of the joint resolution, I am highlighting the particular seriousness of the violence carried out in Malaysia in response to an exclusively nominalistic issue.
Indeed, it is certain that both Christians and Muslims believe in only one God, who is the God of all men, believers and non-believers alike. The fact that He is referred to by different names is absolutely secondary. To claim that the Muslim God is only Muslim and can therefore be invoked only by Muslims, using a traditionally Muslim name, means returning to the ancestral and tribal view that there is a God for each group of human beings. In other words, it means contradicting the monotheistic idea that makes universal religions which, like Christianity and Islam, oppose idolatry and polytheism, great religions that are close to people.
No less serious is the persecution of the Copts in Egypt. It was on the shores of the Mediterranean that monotheistic religions, which claim to be, and are, forces for promoting brotherhood and peace, were born. However, it is remarkable that it should be precisely on the shores of the Mediterranean, in Jerusalem - a holy city for those who believe in God, Allah and Jehovah - that the main breeding ground for conflict is found.
It is precisely Egypt that is the most powerful country in the area, where Christians and Muslims must coexist peacefully in order to play a peacemaking role throughout the southern Mediterranean area.
Edite Estrela
I support the joint motion for a resolution on the recent attacks against Christian communities because it strongly condemns all kinds of violence, discrimination or intolerance that is based on religion or beliefs. I think that it is vital to support all initiatives that are aimed at encouraging dialogue and mutual respect between communities and which seek to safeguard fundamental rights such as freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Diogo Feio
Men and women all over the world continue to suffer the most brutal forms of persecution simply because they believe in God in the same way that He is venerated from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains. Following statements by China, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and Vietnam, among others, Parliament today condemned the harassment of Christians in Egypt and Malaysia.
Europe views all this with relative indifference. There are even those who defend this failure to act by invoking respect for other people's culture and freedom to worship. Europe's silence on this issue, truly astonishing in a region whose origins, culture and traditions are imbued with the Christian faith, threatens to become deafening ...
This brings to mind the Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna's comment on earlier persecutions, which aptly illustrate the spirit of our times, whereby he noted that people are quicker to worry about the fate of polar bears than about the thousands of Christians who live their lives under threat.
Jacek Olgierd Kurski
Another year, 2010, has started with the bloody persecution of Christians in many parts of the world. We cannot, as the European Parliament, be passive in the face of these crimes and acts of violence. The situation of Christians is equally dramatic in countries not mentioned in today's resolution, such as North Korea, Iraq, India and Sudan. Attacks on Catholics are increasing in Vietnam. As a Member from Poland, a country with a deep-rooted Christian tradition and a country with a long tradition of respect where many religious communities coexist, I would like to express solidarity with the families of the victims. The Egyptian and Malaysian authorities must guarantee Christians and members of other communities and religious minorities the possibility to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms, or face sanctions from the European Union. For this reason, we should endorse the resolution on recent attacks on Christian communities.
Csaba Sógor
The recent attacks against Christian communities in Egypt and Malaysia can be viewed from two different perspectives. First, we must emphasise that the European Union, as a community of European States that have reached a high level of democracy and the rule of law, must not, in the spirit of religious tolerance, human and minority rights, pass over such events in silence, regardless of where in the world they may occur. We must make it clear to governments that strive to continue to maintain good relations with us that Europe demands that the widely accepted norms of universal human rights be respected by its partners, and that the future development of relations can be affected by problems involving human rights. At the same time, we must not forget the infringements of human rights that occur on the territory of the European Union.
In some cases, religious tolerance, human and minority rights - including those of members of minority churches - need to be developed further in EU Member States as well. If Europe wants to set an example to the world, it cannot allow anyone on its territory to suffer discrimination for his or her religious convictions, ethnic origin or membership of a national minority. We can see that the legislation in force in Egypt similarly guarantees religious freedom, but in practice, the experience of Christians is that the opposite is the case. Unfortunately, we can find similar examples of a discrepancy between the law and daily practice in EU Member States as well.


Tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Kauppi, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations.
Piia-Noora Kauppi
rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to start by emphasising what my report, which is being debated today, is essentially about. While the report is nominally about taxation, the real issue at stake here is the proper functioning of the internal market of the EU.
The global economy is developing in a way that puts an increasing amount of pressure on Europe to maintain its competitiveness, a fact that has been underlined and widely agreed upon in various instances, notably in the Lisbon Strategy and its revisions. We must be proactive in rising to the challenge and I believe that a fully-functioning single market is the first priority in achieving this.
In addition to the freedom of movement of goods, people and services, this implies, crucially, a level playing field for European companies to establish business in any location in Europe as if it were a single country, a home market - a genuine home market - where decisions are based according to a real economic advantage, not a distorted one created by red tape.
Obstacles to this freedom do not only lead to suboptimal economic choices but also prevent European businesses from expanding. The fact that some such obstacles still remain is regrettable, as a Europe-wide home market is a stepping stone to growth for European businesses and a precondition for creating more European world leaders.
Cross-border consolidation of losses - the subject of this report - is a step towards such a working home market. Currently, in this respect, the tax treatment of a group operating within a single Member State is heavily preferential compared to a cross-border situation. Within a single Member State a company can usually offset losses incurred by its branches and subsidiaries in the taxation of the parent company. However, in the case of branches and subsidiaries in other Member States, the national legislation varies considerably.
In most cases, if consolidation of losses for tax purposes within the same group is possible, it is nevertheless granted with considerable and varying delays. This discrepancy has grave consequences for the proper functioning of the internal market. It distorts investment decisions, constituting a barrier to entering some markets while tending to unfairly favour the large markets where losses can more easily be absorbed. It particularly hampers the SMEs' capacity to expand, as they frequently incur start-up losses that they cannot immediately absorb - even the time factor is very relevant to SMEs. The existence of differing Member State legislation obviously also increases compliance costs, ill afforded by SMEs and conducive to tax engineering with larger companies.
Finally, delays in loss relief are understandably costly and burdensome to all European companies. There is a considerable cost burden involved when capital that is legitimately recoverable is tied up, often for years, because the current national loss relief legislation will not allow consolidation without delays.
The report promotes a remedy to this by promoting the possibility to offset losses in the same tax year, which would transfer the unreasonable time burden away from the company and to the public sector. It would also level the playing field, at the same time lowering companies' compliance costs. It would also mean that the tax domain is one where there is still work to be done to make the most of the internal market. This does not imply harmonising tax rates, rather that tax competition is a healthy feature of the European economy. However, it does mean legislating to facilitate cross-border business, to establish a level playing field where investments are based on undistorted economic benefits.
I therefore welcome the Commission's activities in this area in promoting cross-border loss relief measures. I would like to see Parliament support this urgently needed legislation, and I am grateful for the messages of support we have received during the process. I think that Parliament's opinion on the question will also be very timely because the European Court of Justice has called for political guidance on the issue as well.
I would further like to encourage the Commission to push ahead with the CCTB as a longer-term solution, which I hope will also be supported by this House in this report. However, the CCTB is a long-term project, the realisation of which lies far in the future. In the mean time, cross-border laws, relief and consolidation of losses are urgently needed as an intermediate remedy to some serious problems encountered within the functioning of the internal market.
László Kovács
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, some weeks ago, as you remember, we discussed the contribution of taxation and customs policies to the Lisbon Strategy of growth, jobs and competitiveness. Cross-border loss relief is one key element for establishing a competitive internal market without obstacles and thus contributing to growth and employment.
Let me explain the importance of granting cross-border loss relief for the internal market. Imagine a small or medium-sized enterprise which is operating successfully in its domestic market. Once it plans to expand its operation to other Member States, to the internal market, it will not only run into problems regarding additional compliance costs. Thus, in many cases, this SME will not be able to set off any start-up losses against profits which it may continue to generate in its Member State of residence.
The non-consideration of foreign losses results in double taxation and discourages many SMEs from investing in other Member States. With the new initiative on cross-border loss relief, large enterprises - but also SMEs in particular - could more easily extend their activities abroad and enjoy the full benefits of the internal market.
The initiative on cross-border loss relief constitutes a targeted solution in the short to medium term and represents an intermediary step. But please note that this initiative could in the future be complementary to the common consolidated corporate tax base (CCTB), notably for companies that are not covered by the CCTB.
The initiative on cross-border loss relief is more limited in scope than the consolidation of the tax base under the CCTB would be, as this provides automatic and comprehensive off-setting of all profits and losses within a group of companies.
I highly appreciate the strong support expressed in Ms Kauppi's report for the Commission's initiative in the field of cross-border loss relief, for the coordination approach and of course also for our work on the CCTB.
Like you, I am persuaded that we should continue our efforts to dismantle tax barriers in the internal market.
Zsolt László Becsey
on behalf of the PPE-DE group - (HU) Thank you, Mr President. I would like to thank the Commissioner and Mrs Kauppi for this report. They have dealt with an important issue eliciting sensitive and contrasting emotions.
Two comments. On the one hand, I feel it is important that from the standpoint of the internal market there should be no danger that a parent company and a subsidiary are at a disadvantage simply because they are operating in two different Member States, compared with companies operating in only one Member State.
So I urge that double taxation is ruled out, as the Commissioner has said, perhaps through the mechanism of electronic cooperation. Given time factors, we could encourage efficient cross-border activity by the economic players and employ credit and exemption methods.
At the same time I feel we must be concerned when a subsidiary makes a profit and a parent company makes a loss. Mrs Kauppi, in the new Member States, for example, this is of more interest from our point of view.
My second point about scrapping double taxation concerns the common consolidated tax base. We still have to debate this but I have reservations. I do not want to champion tax sovereignty but I cannot yet see clearly the effect of the common consolidated tax base. I am also fearful that there will be a lot of political pressure for a minimum level, just as with VAT or income tax. The proposals suggested by the Socialist and Communist, and perhaps the left-wing representatives too, demonstrate this, although the Maastricht criteria, I believe, put a stop to this.
But my fear here is that I do not know what the effect will be on the new capital-poor eastern European Members in the light of the flow of capital in the internal market. Where will the administration be? And will it be possible to keep individual tax concessions to counterbalance a disadvantageous infrastructure situation?
For these reasons I will abstain from these sections but I wish to thank the Commissioner and the rapporteur again. Thank you, Mr President.
Donata Gottardi
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the motion for a resolution that we are to vote on tomorrow is symptomatic of the need for a fiscal policy at EU level.
This does not mean emasculating or curbing national tax policies; no one doubts the competence of individual Member States in this field. It does however mean flanking and coordinating them, especially when, as in the case of corporate losses in cross-border situations, merger and relocation decisions taken by companies within and outside of Europe transcend national borders.
Clearly, not only national regulations but also bilateral agreements are insufficient, given that in this age of globalised financial markets and globalised production such phenomena occur in large numbers and exceed the confines of individual countries. The content of the motion is the result of a consensus on many points and I shall just recall the main ones, with heartfelt thanks to the rapporteur for her constant willingness to cooperate.
Twenty-seven different tax systems hamper the smooth operation of the internal market and constitute an obstacle for businesses, especially small ones, as Commissioner Kovács has said. The first assertion made in the text is self-evident, expressing the gravest concern over the negative impact that the different treatment of cross-border losses by Member States has on the functioning of the internal market.
The proposed solution is still transitional and temporary because the only perfect solution is a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). That is why we support the Commission communication as an important step in addressing the situation, while calling for adequate coordination among Member States as regards timing and solutions: I am quoting from paragraph 4.
It is important to have recalled the existence of common European institutions such as the 'European company' and the 'European cooperative society', as well as EU procedures concerning Community-scale groups of undertakings. These must be built upon, because they enable us not only to evoke the link with industrial relations, and hence the effects on employment, but also to acknowledge the formation of Community-scale groups of undertakings that are stable. After all, what we aim to foster is the development and implantation of a system of production with Europe, and not the individual Member State, at its heart, a system of production that does not follow the siren voices and decide tactically to diversify into other countries on the grounds of tax advantages, offsetting charges and losses wherever convenient. The production system must be able to rely on equal treatment and avoid differential accounting according to whether the controlling undertaking is based in just one country or has a presence in various countries.
This result cannot be achieved without appropriate rules and uniform conditions. Acknowledging that profitable tax competition would fundamentally undermine the content of this proposal does not amount to waving an ideological flag in opposition to it.
Olle Schmidt
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SV) Thanks to Piia-Noora Kauppi for a good report. She gives a balanced account of the problems and difficulties which arise on the internal market when we have 27 different tax systems. Globalisation, which has been mentioned, has after all increased still further the need for a common approach to tax matters in the EU so that obstacles to competition can be avoided. Different rules and bureaucracy also mean a loss of economic strength to companies and a loss of jobs in the EU. We need clearer rules and an approach which favours enterprise, such as Mrs Kauppi proposes. Perhaps some of us also need to remove the blinkers from our eyes.
Taxes, as we know, are a very sensitive subject. The keywords here are tax competition and freedom of countries to determine their tax rates. The long-term goal of the Commission is to achieve a consolidated corporate tax base. As this is not attainable, targeted measures should be pursued within those areas which are conducive to effectiveness in the internal market.
The report reviews various possibilities for action and shows how individual countries have chosen different approaches, which is good but not enough. It is in principle also reasonable for businesses to offset losses across frontiers within a company or between companies in a consortium. In order to facilitate such an arrangement a common approach is needed to what has to be taxed, in other words a consolidated corporate tax base. We in the ALDE Group think that this is the right way to go. Introduction of the common CCTB will not in itself prevent tax competition, rather the contrary. The tax base will be common, and transparency will be better. This new system will improve the possibilities for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular to offset their losses. Worried finance ministers - and there are many - can rest assured. Your power to tax will stay in place.
Regarding Amendment 1, our Group would like a split vote the first part of which can deal with excise duties separately. As regards the rest, we are inclined to abstain in the vote on Donata Gottardi's amendment to recitals E and F in order to facilitate a broad consensus and broad support in the House for this excellent report.
Dariusz Maciej Grabowski
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the rapporteur deserves credit for her work, but this is a controversial report. We shall be voting against it and I shall now explain why.
This is an attempt to unify tax regimes within the Union, and to impose tax solutions on the Member States. Furthermore, it also amounts to favouring cross-border companies over SMEs, and that would in turn oblige many domestic companies to set up branches and subsidiaries in other countries with no economic justification, simply to benefit from the provisions applying to cross-border companies.
I would just like to point out that for many years cross-border companies took advantage of the lack of qualifications and corruption of officials in the post-Communist countries, resorting to tax and accounting fiddles to declare losses and avoid paying tax. The Union condoned this. The new provision would allow such behaviour to continue and put it on a legal footing. I am particularly surprised because there would be negative consequences for the countries of the old Union, as their taxes would be reduced.
I believe it is necessary first to resolve the problem of tax and accounting fiddles by cross-border firms within the Union and improve the fiscal apparatus, especially in the new Member States. This would assist in the prevention and detection of tax offences.
Sahra Wagenknecht
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we can to some extent agree on one thing: the present situation in the EU, where there are 27 different tax systems operating alongside one another in an integrated single market with completely free movement of capital, is fatally flawed. This is where unity really comes to an end. Tax competition is tax dumping for the rich and the powerful and only imposes a greater tax burden on the shoulders of normal earners and consumers. It is hardly surprising that this situation is particularly pleasing to the property owners and big companies.
What is really astonishing and alarming, however, is that this reality is still being talked up here in this House, which should really be representing the interests of more than just the elite few. In spite of all its nuances and nuanced assessments, the Kauppi report is still just a typical piece of spin. That goes for the position being adopted on the alleged positive impact of tax competition just as much as for the manner in which it deals with the actual subject matter, namely the tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations.
It is an open secret that companies regularly use cross-border loss relief to reduce their tax bill by moving their profits to low-tax zones and low-tax countries. They are very successful in doing this, as the statistics show: such virtual loss offsetting has in fact meant that over the last 20 years the amount of tax paid on the profits made by the multinationals has fallen continuously. The rulings of the European Court of Justice have only served to make this tax arrangement easier and have therefore intruded massively into the fiscal sovereignty of the Member States. All this simply fuels the race to dump corporate tax.
Those who support this development clearly want to see a Europe in which untold wealth is able to accumulate at the top of the pile, while down at the bottom poverty levels increase and the former middle classes have to survive on incomes that are falling in real terms. We want to see a different Europe and we want a socially just taxation policy. For this reason our Group will be rejecting the present report.
John Whittaker
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, the rapporteur claims that this initiative will encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to expand their cross-border business. But I have little doubt that it has been heavily promoted by the large multinationals, because it is they that stand to benefit most. In my country, in Britain, the vast majority of businesses are small, and they provide for some 70% of employment. Only a tiny proportion of these have any interest in foreign operations. But my main objection is that it is more meddling by the European Union in taxation matters. Judging by the EU's record of value added tax, there will be endless changes to the law. We have had eight directives on VAT so far, and it is still a mess and prone to fraud.
Businesses operate best when there are simple, well understood rules, as Mr Schmidt has just said. The EU knows how to do only one thing, and it does it to perfection. And that is to make things complicated. So, contrary to the views of other Members, a much better plan would be to encourage tax competition. Then those nations that have the lightest and simplest taxes will attract the most businesses.
Elisa Ferreira
(PT) Mr President, the different treatment of losses by the various Member States distorts competition in the internal market, is unfair and encourages poor fiscal practice. We therefore welcome the Commission's initiative to propose a minimum level of harmonisation of these rules and hope that the Council will agree with this proposal. This is an area in which better regulation is essential, particularly to eliminate the associated legal uncertainty, which has resulted in repeated recourse to the Court of Justice of the European Communities and which has contributed to increased uncertainty in economic relations, thereby harming companies and SMEs.
It is absolutely essential to ensure that the various fiscal practices are compatible with the effective functioning of the internal market. The quality of the report prepared by the rapporteur, Mrs Kauppi, has enabled a broad consensus to be reached among the main political groups on its fundamental elements. However, certain non-essential aspects of the report, in its initial version, may hinder this agreement. In particular, in the Socialist Group's opinion, this process is not compatible with the open defence of tax competition practices. These practices encourage artificial movements of companies, capital and persons. Such movements frequently result in signs of breakdown both socially and environmentally and in the productive fabric. Furthermore, in some economies, tax competition causes severe problems for the macroeconomic balance with varying consequences, particularly in terms of the level of quality and quantity of public property made available by these countries to their citizens.
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament believes that, on a subject of such strategic importance, it would be highly advantageous to present to the Commission and Council a European Parliament position with a broad basis of support. In the area of this initiative, the European Union still has a long way to go, particularly in terms of creating the oft-mentioned CCCTB or Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. We must create the political conditions for this future work.
Agreement on this report is within our reach. We hope that, when it comes to the final vote, the spirit of compromise among the main political groups will enable the consensus reached on its main messages to be maintained so that there is broad final approval. Those secondary aspects that divide us politically to an extent that is not insurmountable must not be allowed to prevent this approval.
We welcome the active involvement in this process of various members of the PPE-DE Group in particular, including its rapporteur, their spirit of compromise and their spirit of openness, which have enabled a consensus to be reached on the fundamental issues of this report. Thank you, Mr President.
Margarita Starkeviciute
(LT) I would like to draw your attention to something that we talk very much about, the various shortcomings of the internal market, and emphasize the fact that the development of the internal market gives us many advantages. This document is important from the aspect of giving advantages to improve the labour productivity of enterprises working in the single market. However another aspect should not be forgotten. I represent a country where the majority of enterprises belong to European multinationals; they are not national. Therefore, sometimes it is very difficult for us to control our economy in the macroeconomic sense as corporate strategies put the aims of the national economy, such as the fiscal balance, etc., into the shade. We need to find an appropriate compromise between the advantages of the development of the internal market and macroeconomic stability. I would like to draw the commissioner's attention to the need to coordinate politics with economic issues and with Mr Almunia once again.
Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk
(PL) Mr President, as I take the floor in this debate on tax treatment of losses in cross-border disputes, I should like to highlight the following issues.
Firstly, direct taxation, such as corporate tax, does not fall within the competence of the European Commission. As a matter of principle, therefore, the Commission should not concern itself with it.
Secondly, I am surprised to see that the report contains statements disapproving of the reductions in corporate income tax rates introduced in certain Member States, notably new ones.
Thirdly, I am worried by the Commission's call for work on the introduction of a consolidated corporate tax base within the European Union to be speeded up. The nature of such a tax, its rate and setting the tax base are some of the very few instruments that still remain within the remit of the Member States and can be used to accelerate the economic development of less developed countries.
Fourthly, a study of the Commission's proposals for a consolidated corporate tax base suggests that the aim is to ensure all Member States develop at a rate involving at most a 2% rise in GDP per annum. In such a scenario, how would the new Member States that are 20 or 30 years behind the more developed ones ever manage to catch up?
Katerina Batzeli
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the issue of taxation and the possibility of transferring losses for cross-border business groups within the European Union cannot be tackled purely and simply on the basis of facilitating the cross-border operation of businesses. This objective is, of course, important for the smooth operation of the internal market, but when it is a matter of taxing a business, as mentioned in Mrs Kauppi's report, which we are considering today, then it should be placed within the wider context of the debate about greater harmonisation of taxation within the European Union.
Provided that taxation competition does not exist on equal terms and there is no minimum requisite agreement on a common, unified tax base for companies so as to put in place uniform, transparent rules for measuring the tax base, the provision of opportunities such as this regarding tax relief for losses of a cross-border nature at present demands that we adopt a cautious approach. This is because it involves the serious risk of distorting the Member States' taxation and revenue systems, as well as the very operation of the internal market and of competition between businesses.
Olle Schmidt
Mr President, with this new form of debate I could of course use this minute to ask the Commissioner what the current state of play is concerning CCCTB in the Council, because we know that some Ministers of Finance are not very happy. Could you please, Mr Commissioner, tell us how the debate is going on within the Council and what the 27 Member States are proposing today?
László Kovács
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I have followed the debate with great interest, and it has confirmed my conviction that the introduction of cross-border loss relief is an important factor for the deepening of the internal market.
I fully share the views of Ms Kauppi that on the surface it is about taxation, but in reality it is about the proper functioning of the internal market.
I am particularly grateful for your support with facilitating, in particular, the cross-border economic activities of the SMEs, which is very close to my heart. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Kauppi, for the very encouraging report, as well as the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs for their support. The Commission can agree with most of the conclusions.
The support of Parliament is welcome as a factor which may have a positive impact on the subsequent discussion in the Council. As suggested in the report, I can assure you that we are continuing efforts on the CCCTB and on the coordination of Member States' direct tax systems. The CCCTB is also very close to my heart, and the reason is that I am absolutely certain that it would be of greater relative benefit to the small and medium-sized enterprises than the big multinationals.
However, I understand the concerns, and to respond to the question at the end of the debate, I want to tell you that in the Council it is on the table, but not as a concrete proposal. For the time being it is on the table as a concept, and as far as the concept is concerned, some two thirds of Member States expressed their support and less than one third expressed either doubts or opposition.
Any discussion, particularly discussion which would prejudice the current debate on the cross-border loss relief issue, would be premature because there is, for the time being, no concrete legislative proposal. In the legislative work programme of the Commission, however, there is one point which states that, in the second half of the year, we will present a concrete legislative proposal - with the necessary impact assessment - on the CCCTB. Then we can discuss whether the concerns are relevant or not.
One more point: if there is no unanimous agreement - and for the time being I believe that there will be no unanimous agreement - we can resort to enhanced cooperation as a solution. So, no single Member State would be forced to accept the CCCTB and to use it. And, even in those countries that chose the CCCTB, no companies would be forced to use it, because there would be no sense in forcing companies that are not operating in the internal market - that are not doing business in the internal market - to use this common tax base. They can stay with the domestic national base used previously.
So I share your conclusion that, in order to promote coherent development and the proper functioning of the internal market, obstacles deriving from the existence of different company tax regimes in the Member States must be tackled, preferably through common approaches and coordinated actions.
With regard to the loss offset, your report highlights several specific areas where more work needs to be done, such as addressing the particular needs of SMEs, the definition of groups and the scope for automatic information exchange.
My services will study these suggestions and comments and, where possible, bring the issues forward. The SME aspect is already an important part of the work of Vice-President Günter Verheugen. Another aspect, the definition of groups of companies, is an essential element of the work on the CCCTB.
I can also assure you that your recommendations for cross-border loss relief within companies and groups of companies will orient our work in the coming months. There are several references in your report to tax avoidance. Here it may be noted that, last December, the Commission adopted a communication on the application of anti-abuse measures in the area of direct taxation.
The Commission shares the concerns about tax avoidance expressed in your report. Member States need to be able to prevent their tax bases from being eroded because of abuse and aggressive tax planning. At the same time it is vital to ensure that there will be no undue restrictions to the Treaty freedoms. By launching this latest initiative, the Commission seeks to prompt further discussions with the other institutions on how national anti-abuse measures can meet those requirements. Your observations on tax avoidance risk will be taken into consideration.
Finally, as regards the proposed amendments to the report, the Commission would advise against amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, but it could support amendments 7 and 8, which are in line with the spirit of the communication.
Piia-Noora Kauppi
rapporteur. - Mr President, I will be very brief. I am of course happy to note that most of the groups are going to support the report tomorrow in the vote. My group has suggested abstaining with regard to Amendments 7 and 8. I think that it is in line with the Commission's recommendations as well that 7 and 8 will probably be adopted and that means that we have a very large majority backing the report tomorrow.
I also would like to remember a little bit the past: how difficult it was before we accepted the first company taxation directives - a Parent-Subsidiary Directive and an Interest and Royalties Directive in the 1990s - to speak about these items. But they are now there after serious discussion, and I still believe that we can have all the practical things, like anti-abusive measures, that we can improve the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and that we can improve the workings of the Transfer Pricing Forum, and such initiatives are very much needed.
But, in the end, we need a very large solution and CCCTB. At this time it is the best available option and we must take it seriously. I hope that it will be done during this European Parliament term, before the 2009 elections. Something must be done before the 2009 elections and we cannot afford to wait for Member States to come up with their ratifications and referendums. We must act now and before the time is up for this Parliament.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.