Agency for the management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing an agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice - C7-0046/2009 -.
We had expected Commissioner Malmström to be with us, but I understand there is a problem with her incoming flight. She is on her way but she will not be here at the beginning. Commissioner Barnier will stand in so long as is necessary.
Carlos Coelho
Madam President, there are three underlying questions which I would like to highlight at the start of this debate. The first is legislative efficacy. Once more, and on subjects as sensitive as Schengen-related issues, Parliament has managed to come to an agreement at first reading.
We have worked well and quickly. For those who do not believe in codecision, we have once again given a conclusive response. If the decision were still made by unanimity in the Council, it would be adjourned for even longer. I thank the Hungarian Presidency for its efforts and competent performance.
My second point is the strengthening of Schengen. Notwithstanding the differing opinions on some issues, we have achieved broad consensus in this Parliament. This is because, essentially, we want to see Schengen strengthened and we do not condone attempts to weaken the free circulation of people. I thank the shadow rapporteurs for their collaboration and their support.
Thirdly, I would highlight the EU solution. Although initially it had little support in the Council, the creation of this agency corresponds to the preference shown by this Parliament, which has always fought for a European solution to the detriment of the intergovernmental one, which is still prevalent in the First Schengen Information System (SIS I). According to the impact assessment carried out by the Commission, the creation of an agency is without doubt the best solution from an economic, operational and institutional point of view.
I would like to ask Commissioner Barnier to pass on our thanks to Commissioner Malmström for her timely initiative and for her cooperation.
The regulation that we are going to adopt corresponds positively to the concerns of this Parliament. Allow me to emphasise seven points. Firstly, new systems clash with the legislative instrument; much is said about new systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. The regulation clearly ensures that new systems can only be added after they have been created by means of a legal instrument adopted by codecision with the European Parliament.
Secondly, interoperability between systems is rejected. It is expressly guaranteed that there can be no interoperability between the systems managed by the agency, unless this possibility is expressly established in the legal instruments which create each of these systems.
The third point is the location of the agency. Parliament's prerogatives have been respected and the decision has been taken in codecision between Parliament and the Council. The headquarters are to be in Tallinn, the technical site in Strasbourg and the back-up site in Austria. Pressure from Parliament led to our receiving two letters from the French and Estonian Ministers confirming the investment that each of the two countries would make so that the solution arrived at would be the most cost-efficient.
Fourthly, on communication infrastructure we managed to reach a compromise: any possibility of non-authorised access will be prohibited; all data circulating within the network has to be encrypted, and it is guaranteed that the encryption key cannot be transferred to the responsibility of a private company under an outsourcing agreement, exactly the opposite to what currently happens.
We have also regulated the members of the management board and voting rights in such a way as to guarantee that the Member States only participate in systems to which they are linked. The participation of the United Kingdom was safeguarded while Ireland decided not to be bound by this regulation. Finally, Madam President, diverse improvements were introduced with regard to the reinforcement of Parliament's role, the reinforcement of transparency and the improvement of data protection.
Michel Barnier
Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for your understanding. The arrival of Commissioner Malmström's flight was delayed, due to circumstances beyond her control. She has asked me to apologise to you on her behalf. She is currently making her way here to join us, and I will therefore pass your message on to her, Mr Coelho.
I believe she will be here in few moments to take over from me; however, while we wait, I would like to extend very warm thanks, on her behalf, to Mr Coelho, for the constructive approach he showed throughout the negotiations on this proposal involving - I think I can say this - fruitful cooperation between the three institutions. I believe we have thus reached our common objective.
This proposal, as you know better than anyone, is a response to the European Parliament's and the Council's explicit request, made in 2006, when the basic instruments for the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) and the Visa Information System (VIS) were adopted. Based on impact assessments, Eurodac is now also included in the proposal.
The main role of the future agency will be to ensure that these crucial IT systems operate properly 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that data exchange takes place in full compliance with data security and data protection regulations.
In the future, the purpose of the agency will be to develop other very large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, based on the legislative proposals which have been or which are due to be adopted by the co-legislator. With regard to the compromise proposal, Commissioner Malmström informed me that she was satisfied that Parliament's main amendments had been incorporated into the compromise text.
The Commission wishes however to emphasise and clarify its intention to make a statement, to be included in the Council's minutes, recalling that the principle of the European Union's institutional autonomy opposes the granting of voting rights in the agency to third countries, including associated countries.
As a result, the Commission's acceptance of the co-legislator's compromise is based on the principle that this compromise does not grant voting rights to associated countries or create expectation in that regard.
Mr Coelho, honourable Members, Madam President, that is what I wanted to say on behalf of Commissioner Malmström. Thank you for your understanding.
Marian-Jean Marinescu
Madam President, the operational management of the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS), Eurodac and other large-scale information technology systems is crucial to the future of the European area of freedom, security and justice. As a result, setting up a single authority responsible for the operational management of these IT systems is an absolute must.
We are going through a time of budget constraints which must also be reflected in the European agencies' activities. I support the proposal for the agency's strategy to be based on a multiannual staff policy plan and a draft annual work programme, with clear objectives and performance indicators. I regret that the proposal tabled by the Committee on Budgetary Control for the number of members on the management board to be reduced was not accepted. I respect the right of Member States to be involved in the decision-making process at agency level. However, I think that a management board made up of 29 members is a costly, cumbersome structure which does not help operations run more efficiently. I think that the agency's number-one priority must be to clarify the situation with SIS II. An analysis needs to be carried out and a decision made about the programme and the costs involved in completing this system.
Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra
Madam President, I support Mr Coelho's thorough work and I congratulate him on his negotiating capacity, in Parliament and at first reading.
In terms of the need to create a new agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems, we should remember that the Commission itself has declared that it cannot assume the responsibility for managing large databases, and that creating a merely executive agency would not in any case give Parliament control, because it would still be embedded in the structure of the European Commission.
Considering the important work being entrusted to the new agency and the need for this work to be scrutinised by Parliament, however, the new body should take the form of a European agency with its own legal status.
Its objectives should be clearly defined, these being operational management of the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac. It could also take responsibility for the preparation, development and operational management of other large-scale information systems.
However, it should be noted that this must in all cases be done with the right legal instruments. The agency will not under any circumstances be able to take political decisions, such as creating new information systems or decisions on interoperability with different systems.
The important role that the agency is to play means it must have a reinforced administrative structure that will ensure data integrity and protection, and for this reason it is essential that it incorporate a post of data security manager and an independent data protection body, thereby complying with the legal provisions contained in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In conclusion, Mr Coelho, I am very much in agreement with your three initial points, and with the seven points made by Parliament on making a strong commitment to reaching an EU solution and taking a firm stand against any limitation of the Schengen Area.
Sylvie Guillaume
Madam President, I too would like to commend our fellow Member Mr Coelho for the skills which he employed during this negotiation and which have enabled the European Parliament to achieve a number of excellent results.
Our objective, as he said, was to improve the operational effectiveness of data security systems in the area of justice and internal affairs, for the Schengen Information System (SIS), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac.
I would like to underline several points which the socialists consider to be truly positive steps forward. First of all, it has been guaranteed that the agency's remit will be limited to technical tasks which will not be allowed to exert any form of influence on the actual substance of the data held. Secondly, democratic transparency is to be employed throughout the whole process, allowing the European Parliament not only to be involved in the selection process for the agency's director, but also, and above all, assuring us that, if the agency's remit were to be extended to other systems and if there were an intention to make any of those systems interoperable with current systems, this could only be done through the ordinary legislative procedure. Thirdly, it is forbidden for private operators to undertake system maintenance and have access to security codes and data content and, finally, the European Parliament is participating in choosing the location for the agency's seat.
With regard to this final point, I would like to express my regret that in negotiating the regulations the naming of the seat was subject to such resistance from the Council. Its unilateral statement to the effect that this decision would not set a precedent has no legal value as such. Our institution adhered strictly to the Treaties, according to which Parliament must also give its consent in the naming of seats of European agencies.
In light of this, I would like the Council to at last consider the European Parliament as a full partner, that is to say a co-legislator, in the same capacity as itself. This form of institutional rivalry is also affecting work on the Schengen issue, particularly as regards the revision of the Schengen evaluation mechanism. I would in that regard like us to move our focus to debating the real issues rather than focusing on legal battles.
(Applause)
Sarah Ludford
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, Mr Coelho is as usual a safe pair of hands - I am not sure what we would do without him - and he has safely overseen the co-legislation of this regulation.
The Commission has attempted to develop several large-scale systems over the last few years but we know, certainly in the case of SIS II, that there have been serious delays and even some apparent mismanagement. In some of our Member States it is not unknown to have these problems. So it is sensible to concentrate technical know-how in one place. But at the same time, as Mr Coelho said, it is important to ensure on sensitive issues, such as any proposal for system or data interoperability, that Parliament is very much involved in any such decision.
It is also important that this regulation provides for the European Data Protection Supervisor to have the power to obtain from the agency access to all information necessary to his work.
The Commission will shortly propose setting up yet more IT systems, for instance an entry/exit system for Schengen borders and a registered traveller programme. I do not know whether the Commissioner - I know he is standing in for a colleague - is able to tell us whether the Commission is already planning that the agency should be involved in designing those two new databases.
I am very pleased that the UK will be able to participate in the adoption of this regulation and in the management of the agency to a degree that reflects its participation in SIS and in Eurodac. This is perhaps a model for variable geometry in the Schengen evaluation mechanism.
Jan Philipp Albrecht
Madam President, Commissioner Barnier, Mr Coelho, right now we are debating for the last time the framework for the IT agency that is to be created for the European Union. As Parliament we will agree a compromise with the Council that incorporates our key demands. This is partly because we have already had many debates on this, but it is also partly down to the good work carried out by the rapporteur, who I would like to thank both for his work and for such good cooperation. I would like to take this opportunity to assure him of the support of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.
Having said that, however, I should like to emphasise one substantive point regarding the IT agency. The framework planned quite clearly excludes any integration of various databases with personal data. We want to have an efficient and secure technical platform, but we do not want this expanded to include the capture of personal data for any purpose whatsoever. Parliament's vote should sound a note of warning to anyone who has other intentions. We are keeping an eye on this agency and will not tolerate anyone veering off on their own.
Adam Bielan
Madam President, in today's increasingly mobile world, personal data protection is an essential tool in ensuring the safety of citizens and an area of free and unrestricted movement in the European Union. Well-organised and reliable protection will increase activity, which will also contribute to economic and social development.
The plan to create a supervisory agency for all three information systems currently in force appears interesting, as managing large-scale information systems requires a responsible specialist institution. However, it is important to ensure that all Member States are represented on its board. For the data protection system to be effective, individual solutions must be obligatory for all Member States. An important task that the agency must perform is to guarantee the security of the network and data transmission by eliminating the threats that are becoming increasingly widespread. According to the model of the European Data Protection Inspector, the agency should achieve its aims while respecting the fundamental rights of citizens. I hope that this system will allow data to be exchanged more effectively and processed and made available more securely.
Derek Roland Clark
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, yet another expensive, bureaucratic monster arises by combining VIS, SIS and Eurodac, whether or not any Member State currently participates in these agencies. It is meant to develop Schengen, which itself is under pressure due to the Libyan situation. What is the use of a system to allow free movement which has to be partially suspended because of the free movement it encourages?
I understand there will be a central agency to retain fingerprints and biometric records for five years, including material obtained under SIS - 'information regarding certain categories of persons and property'. So, under the guise of facilitating the free movement of people, we have a resurrection of the Stasi.
Of course, this is intended to lead to EU immigration control. In the case of the UK, many immigrants come from the Commonwealth, a unique voluntary association including every single one of our former colonies. Well, we have our own border controls for that purpose, and the EU does not have the right to interfere.
Hubert Pirker
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Coelho, in contrast to the previous speaker, I believe that it is important for us to in fact support the establishment of this agency. I have often been sceptical when it comes to establishing agencies. In this case I am happy to support it. Firstly, I know that Mr Coelho led the negotiations, so I know that the result will be positive. You can rely on that. Secondly, the European Commission's handling of the Schengen Information System has shown that the management of major IT systems cannot be entrusted to the Commission. Thirdly, I consider it sensible that we bring the management of three major information systems - these being the Schengen Information System, the Visa Information System and Eurodac - under one roof. This will undoubtedly have synergy benefits.
It is also important that we state what the agency is to do and what it is not to do; namely, that it is not to make political decisions, but that it is to provide a high standard of management for these three information systems.
Moreover, I believe that training should be provided to ensure that the same high standards apply in all countries in respect of the implementation and use of the systems.
Finally, I should like to reiterate that I hope that this agreement on the agency will start a new debate on how the information systems can be usefully linked together - but only where there is good reason for doing so. I would point out that this would be particularly useful in a crisis situation such as we currently have in North Africa. We know that criminals are exploiting this system to cross borders and apply for asylum here, using the asylum process as a means of slipping in drugs couriers or even terrorists. Allowing Europol to use these systems would have security benefits for Europe's citizens, and I would therefore welcome the start of a discussion along these lines.
Monika Flašíková Beňová
(SK) Madam President, I too would like to thank Mr Coelho, because I believe that bringing the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac together under a single EU agency is the right way to go.
The problem is, however, that some Member States are not involved in the individual systems at all, while others have only a partial involvement. In these circumstances, I would like to ask about the extent to which the regulation before us will be binding on such Member States, and about the powers they will hold in the adoption of the legislation establishing the agency.
Despite the uncertainties, I am convinced that the creation of this agency is desirable. The agency will perform important tasks and should also be responsible for technical measures of a non-legislative nature required by these tasks. These responsibilities should be without prejudice to the legislative duties exclusively within the remit of the Commission. The agency ought to be a purely operational, rather than a political, institution. Its operations and decisions must be consistent with the legal basis adopted by the European Parliament for the three different databases.
Véronique Mathieu
(FR) Madam President, Commissioners, first of all I would like to commend the work of our colleague Mr Coelho on this very difficult issue, for which a high level of technical expertise and a tremendous amount of work and knowledge of the issue were required.
Controlling our common territory and our European borders is one of the most significant issues we must deal with, and technology, more than ever, helps to address this challenge. Over the last few years, we have indeed witnessed an unprecedented increase in European databases and the exchange of personal data. This trend which some are describing as a digital tsunami can certainly be expected to continue in coming years.
The Schengen Information System (SIS), Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac are today all essential instruments in ensuring the security of European citizens. Ensuring effective operational management of these databases is therefore a key issue to which it is our responsibility to provide an effective response. This response is of course a very sensitive matter, and Mr Coelho has had to cope with many legal, institutional, budgetary, political and technical hurdles and, in spite of them all, he has managed to draft a balanced text which satisfies all of the parties concerned.
The creation of this agency for the management of large-scale IT systems indeed seems to be the best way of ensuring Member States' internal security. No other institution or existing agency is currently capable of ensuring that these information systems are managed properly. The agency will help to improve the management of existing information systems, provide better synergy between databases and also enable instruments adopted in the future to be integrated.
Where to locate the seat of the agency was one of the very delicate questions which arose on this issue. Estonia and France are the only two countries to have put themselves forward as locations for the seat. France already hosts the Schengen Information System, in Strasbourg, and has been responsible for its operational management and administration since 1995; the country thus has full technical expertise.
Following the conclusions of the European Council of December 2003, which gave priority to new Member States for hosting new agencies, Estonia also wanted to welcome the seat of this future agency. I believe that a very good compromise has been reached: a sort of distribution of missions - and I will conclude here Madam President - has been achieved by transferring the seat of the agency to Tallinn. Tasks relating to governance, strategy and programme design will be carried out there, while system development and operation will take place in Strasbourg. This cost-effectiveness ratio is very well balanced, and this compromise solution in no way undermines the centralised management of IT systems.
Ioan Enciu
(RO) Madam President, I too would like to begin by commending the exceptional efforts of Carlos Coelho who, once again, has shown the outstanding expertise he has in this area.
I would like to make two comments about setting up this new agency, which I also feel is very beneficial. First of all, in the current climate where cyber attacks have started to pose a danger of paramount global importance, we must ensure that the security of the databases administered by this agency is underpinned by the highest standards. Secondly, for the time being at least, the new agency, if it were to operate, would be unable to do part of its job as the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) is still a long way from being operational. This is why I am taking this opportunity to ask the Commission and the Commissioner to keep to their commitment to complete SIS II by the deadline.
Petru Constantin Luhan
(RO) Madam President, it makes natural sense to suggest setting up this agency as the Commission must not be responsible for managing these large-scale IT systems, precisely so that total transparency is ensured and any conflict of interest eliminated. Just think about the scope of this system comprising three parts - the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac - which need a single, well-structured agency to look after them, due to their considerable importance and the interconnecting links between them.
I think that fragmented, disjointed administration would put these systems out of kilter with each other, which could have a devastating impact on the protection of personal data, on visa-related information and on asylum applications. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the creation of this specific agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems, as a measure to protect security and integrity in the European Union.
Indrek Tarand
Madam President, I was not intending to waste the plenary's time, but I was provoked by Mr Clark who said that another bureaucratic monster like the Stasi will be created.
I would like to remind Mr Clark that the future home of the IT agency, or whatever we call it, is Tallinn, which is not the place where the Stasi was invented. Indeed, on the contrary another 'S' word, Skype, was invented by Estonian boys and girls some years ago. Beyond that Estonia was the first country to be under real cyber-attacks in the modern age and we survived. I believe Schengen, with the free movement of European people, will survive with us as well.
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Madam President, as we know, better cooperation and various IT systems are supposed to compensate for the removal of internal borders. So far, the only example of such a project - the Schengen Information System (SIS II) - is noteworthy only for its skyrocketing costs and repeated delays. As far as I am concerned, it is doubtful whether there is even any point in having our own IT agency. In theory, it will link together the visa databases and the digital information on asylum seekers and criminals more effectively than has been done in the past. The scale of such an IT project is made evident by the fact that the Schengen Information System (SIS) was originally designed to handle 15 million records and is now required to handle 100 million - not least because of national differences. If data cannot be coordinated within one system without problems (in other words, within SIS and SIS II), it is critical that we ask how a separate IT agency is suddenly supposed to be able to link together all the vastly different systems. It seems to me to be a very difficult task.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) Madam President, it has been apparent for some time that an agency needs to be set up to manage the sprawling IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. This will be another step on the way towards the smoother processing and use of information within the European Union. Obviously, the agency must meet the highest EU standards of data protection in its operations, and Member States which are not part of the system should be denied access to the information. As for the agency's seat, I absolutely agree with the choice of a single centralised location, as this is the least costly solution and will make it easier for the agency's various units to work together.
Finally, I would like to say how pleased I am that the European Parliament has had an opportunity to make a major, direct contribution to the establishment of this agency, and I congratulate Mr Coelho.
Cecilia Malmström
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, forgive me for arriving late, my plane departed very late, but I know you were in the capable hands of Commissioner Barnier. Let me thank you and the rapporteur for the debate, and let me quickly answer a few of the questions.
I think Baroness Ludford asked whether the agency would cover any other IT systems. The agency will initially take over operational management of VIS and Eurodac. SIS II will also be taken over as soon as it is operational, i.e. in the first quarter of 2013. In the communication that the Commission made a few weeks ago, we also referred to the European entry/exit system and a registered travel programme. We also announced that we would conduct further consultations in the coming weeks, and this is what we will do, together with the Parliament and with the Council, regarding the communication on smart borders.
The plan is to entrust these systems, once they are in place, to the IT agency, working on the basis of the relevant instruments. I can assure Mr Albrecht that no other system will be put in place without a specific legal act, and that interoperability will not be introduced without the consent of the two co-legislators.
With regard to Mr Enciu's question on security, all safeguards are in place both from a legal and logistical point of view; I can reassure him of that. We have achieved something very worthwhile with this compromise between the three institutions. I am looking forward to this new agency becoming operational and starting work.
Carlos Coelho
Madam President, I too would like to welcome Commissioner Malmström. Before she arrived, I had occasion to remark that it is again proven that codecision is a powerful instrument, because if we still had the old system and this decision did not have codecision but was adopted unanimously by the Council, we would probably not have a decision because we would still be at a stalemate in the Council, awaiting a unanimous vote that we would never be able to attain.
I would like to say that I agree with the points made by Mr Marinescu. In fact, I would also have liked a management board with fewer members, but in these Schengen-related matters, which are based on mutual trust, it is very important that all Member States participate, and that is the only reason we have accepted a very large management board. However, it does not in fact make sense that all of our European agencies should have such large management boards.
Mrs Flašíková Beňová and Mr Mikolášik raised the question of Member State participation. The truth is that the United Kingdom decided to participate in this regulation and Ireland decided to remain outside, but what we have ensured is, first of all, that the chair of this agency can only be from a Member State that participates in all the systems managed by the agency. In other words, those Member States that participate partially are not eligible to hold the chair. Secondly, and I will end here Madam President, only Member States that participate in each of the areas have access to the information. I therefore believe that those concerns are being protected.
To end, Madam President, I would like to thank all of my fellow Members for their kind words. I think we have all been up to this challenge, and Parliament and the Council, with the help of the Commission, have demonstrated once more that we have managed to arrive at a first reading with great success in record time.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 5 July 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Salvatore Iacolino
Mr Coelho's report has obtained my approval in this Chamber insofar as I am convinced of the need to establish an agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. As the Commission itself had already stated in 2009, the management of systems such as SIS II, VIS and Eurodac, which are so complex and at the same time so crucial within the EU, cannot continue on the same temporary basis that has characterised them until today. Temporary management by the Commission cannot ensure the technical and operational capacity that, by contrast, the creation of an appropriate agency will allow. An agency will carry out its work on a continuous and constant basis, its principal duties being: the adoption of security measures, reporting and publishing, monitoring and organising specific training. I therefore fully agree with what has been decided in the report and have complete confidence that this is a further step towards ensuring that Europe remains on course to establish an integrated network for the development of security and democracy.
Kristiina Ojuland
in writing. - It has taken more than two years from the Commission's proposal to the first reading in the Parliament. The establishment of the EU IT agency is a long-awaited step towards ensuring streamlined operational management of large-scale European Union IT systems, namely SIS II, VIS and Eurodac.
However, from a long-term perspective, the agency ought also to become a centre of competence responsible for developing additional large-scale IT systems, should it be required to do so in the future and if the Parliament and the Council so decide. I am pleased that a compromise has been reached between Estonia and France to locate the seat of the agency in Tallinn, Estonia. This decision is in line with the European Council conclusions of 13 December 2003, which gave priority to the Member States that acceded to in 2004 and 2007 in the distribution of the seats of new EU offices and agencies. The agency is expected to begin work at the beginning of 2012. I therefore hope that the Parliament and the Council can adopt the regulation at first reading so that the agency can become operational on schedule.


1. Zimbabwe (vote)
- Before the vote:
Manuel Medina Ortega
(ES) Mr President, as regards the vote on Zimbabwe, I am here for the vote but will not participate. I would like it to go on record that my reason for not taking part is because, in the event, I have decided not to do so. However I would like the record to show that I was here at the plenary.
President
Your presence has been noted.


1. The humanitarian situation of Iraqi refugees
President
The next item is the debate on the six motions for a resolution on the humanitarian situation of Iraqi refugees.
Marios Matsakis
author. - Mr President, Commissioner, Iraq is today in a catastrophic abyss and the Iraqi people find themselves in a state of utter despair and shock. The confirmed statistics provided by international agencies, such as the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq and other UN organisations, are truly grim and heartbreaking. Every day on average one hundred people are killed and two hundred wounded; 50% of the population is living on less than one dollar a day and unemployment affects more than 80% of the population. Only a minority have access to adequate water supplies and effective sanitation. Electricity supply is severely restricted and is subject to frequent interruptions without warning. Four out of five doctors have left their hospitals and three out of four children are not at school.
Almost three million people are internally displaced, i.e. they are refugees in their own country, and this number increases by about 2000 every day. A further two million Iraqis are refugees in neighbouring states, namely Syria, Jordan, the Gulf region, Egypt and Iran. These people have no formal refugee protection status.
The EU and the international community in general have a moral duty to show compassion and understanding for the miserable circumstances the Iraqi refugees find themselves in. Additionally, and more importantly, they must take much more effective measures to ensure that these poor people are given the help and support they so desperately need in order to survive indignity and the calamity that has fallen upon them.
This joint motion for a resolution lists a number of measures that are of importance in helping the Iraqi refugees have a more human existence.
So far, I have spoken as a representative of my group, now permit me to say a few words on a personal basis. Iraq is a relatively new country: it only became independent from Britain in 1932. It then followed a history of turmoil and, eventually, Saddam Hussein came to power. He was a tyrant and a criminal but he was assisted in gaining power by the West, including, unfortunately, some European states.
Sadly, though, even the worst days of Saddam Hussein's totalitarian rule seem nothing in comparison to the death, destruction and suffering that has fallen on the Iraqi people following the Bush-Blair invasion and continued occupation of the country. These two 'peacekeepers' ordered an attack on Iraq, promising to bring happiness and prosperity to the Iraqi people. Instead, they succeeded in bringing a calamity of gigantic proportions. Yet some EU circles continue to applaud this invasion and, recently, they have even agreed to rewarding Mr Blair for his 'peace' services to the Arab world by appointing him Special Representative of the Quartet to the Middle East. May God bring some sanity to such circles and may God save us from the Bushes and Blairs of this world !
Esko Seppänen
deputising for the author. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I shall read Tobias Pflüger's speech. 'Sadly, not until today have we held a debate on assistance for the Iraqi refugees. I deeply regret that. Why did the liberal, right-wing nationalist and conservative groups drop the subject from the agenda of the last plenary part-session? Instead, the House engaged in ideological debates about Cuba.
The situation in Iraq is desperate. Since the US invasion and the formation of the so-called 'coalition of the willing', more than 600 000 people have been killed. More than two million Iraqis have fled the country. To these may be added two million within the country who have been driven from their homes and more than 40 000 non-Iraqi refugees. The number of US service personnel who have lost their lives rises daily and has now reached 3 600. Regrettably, through their participation in the war and their support of the war, Member States of the EU - and Germany is one of the foremost culprits - bear a substantial share of responsibility for the situation in Iraq.
Real help must now be given to the refugees. That cannot be the task of the neighbouring countries alone. The EU must commit funds for this purpose. Deportations to Iraq must be brought to an immediate halt. The troops of the United States and its allies in the so-called coalition of the willing must be withdrawn. EU Member States must stop supporting the war. An end to the illegal war and the occupation of Iraq is imperative.
Charles Tannock
author. - Mr President, I was one of those politicians who supported the Iraq war back in 2003 in the belief that Saddam Hussein posed a serious long-term risk to regional stability, but also because of the horrendous brutality of his Baathist regime. I believed this would be replaced by democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
But I, like many others, sadly underestimated the ferocity of the subsequent insurgency and the serious lack of peace planning, post-invasion, by our US allies, in particular their disastrous dismantling of the Iraqi army as a de-Baathification measure, which unleashed disgruntled Sunni officers to lend their expertise to the insurgency. There was also a failure to secure the Jordanian and Syrian borders against jihadi extremists flocking in to have a bash at the allies, not to mention that Saddam opened his jails before his fall, which added organised crime to this lethal cocktail, and always with the fingers of Iran meddling on the side of the Shias in what has now become virtually a civil war.
Curiously, immediately after the invasion, there was little in the way of internally displaced persons or refugees compared to the previous exodus of Kurds in the Saddam days. Paradoxically, the Kurdish flow has now stopped, as this is one of the few remaining peaceful areas of the country.
Sadly, in the last two years, huge numbers of Iraqis - perhaps over two million - have left, particularly the long-suffering, persecuted Christian Assyrian minorities who have been squeezed on all sides by Islamists, who accuse them of collaborating with the crusaders, and by the Kurds, who want their lands. Canon Andrew White, who ran Iraq's only Anglican Church, left Baghdad yesterday amid fears for his life and safety after trying to secure the release of five kidnapped Britons.
But the EU must now do more to alleviate the crisis by boosting financial aid to the surrounding Arab states, which have received the bulk of the refugees, in particular Jordan and Syria, and they have been particularly good at taking in the Assyrians. The EU Member States must also accept, within reason, more refugees on a temporary basis.
Paulo Casaca
author. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Iraqi brothers and sisters, an initial word in memory of all those who have been deprived of their most precious asset because of their ethnic or religious origin, their real or presumed convictions, or for being a symbol of democratic courage and public spirit. Allow me to put the spotlight on my comrade, companion and friend, the Member of Parliament Mohammad Hossein Ahwad, the very embodiment of the fight against theocratic fascism, who was assassinated on 12 April in the Iraqi parliament.
In order that the blinding tears of pain do not prevent us from seeing those women who still fight to keep their children alive on the pathways of ethnic cleansing, the countless thousands of Iraqis gazing into infinity on the streets of Amman, Damascus and Cairo, profoundly affected victims of post-traumatic syndromes, the camps set up in squares or in the buttresses of ruined churches or mosques, I would like to send a message of solidarity, love, affection and hope to all.
We cannot begin to imagine, nor can these words express, the barbarity of the forces of darkness who rehearsed their plan for the entire greater Middle East on the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The common resolution which we now put forward is a vital first step towards reversing the situation.
Jean Lambert
author. - Mr President, I welcome the resolution and, like others, I am really concerned about the truly tragic situation that we see in Iraq and on its borders at the moment. This is a people that have already suffered war, ethnic cleansing, a brutal dictatorship, an illegal invasion and communal violence, and are now seeing borders closing both externally and internally, seeing little chance of resettlement, and seeing a very mixed reception should any of them make it to the European Union.
We should not be surprised when war produces refugees - it always does - and indeed, as has already been said, some of our Member States have a very grave responsibility for that situation. I would agree, for once, with Mr Tannock, certainly on the question of the lack of post-war planning.
I particularly welcome, in this resolution, the statement that there should be no forced return of Iraqi refugees, or of those who have had their claims turned down that are currently living in the European Union, and at present we certainly need to find a status for such people, rather than leaving them destitute in our own Member States, as is happening in some places.
I would say that there is no part of Iraq which is currently safe. Even in Kurdistan we see Turkish troops at the moment massing on the borders there, undermining the possibility of return to destroyed villages and undermining efforts to increase economic stability in that area. Indeed, some of those that have been returned were sent back wearing flak jackets and helmets, which, to me, says it is not exactly a safe area. We also had a report from Human Rights Watch only last week saying that, despite the efforts of authorities in Kurdistan, partisan security forces continue the practice of kidnap and torture, so there is no real safe area in Iraq.
We know that we have to increase our support to the countries dealing with refugees on the border, and to the UNHCR, because we know what happens when you ignore the plight of refugees at the border. We only have to look at our experience when we more or less turned our back on two million Afghan refugees on the Pakistani border and left them without adequate support - that vacuum is filled, and we do not always like the result.
I welcome the call, in the resolution, for the Commission to explain to Parliament's Committee on Budgets in more detail exactly how we are helping in Iraq and how we are aiming to support those surrounding countries. But, equally, I think we should be looking at our own resettlement policies to at least offer assistance to some of those who, once again, are finding their lives absolutely in turmoil.
Bogusław Rogalski
author. - (PL) Mr President, the humanitarian and human rights situation in Iraq is constantly deteriorating. This is what the reports of the UN aid mission to Iraq reveal.
The statistics are horrifying. On average, around one hundred people die every day and over two hundred are injured. 50% of the population live on less than a dollar a day and the unemployment rate stands at 80%. There are insufficient water supplies and the sewage systems are inefficient, which encourages the spread of disease. Three quarters of children do not attend school. Criminal activity, armed attacks, kidnappings, killings of people involved in political activities or rebuilding the country are all everyday occurrences. That is why many Iraqis flee their country and over two million people have become internally displaced. It should also be highlighted that there are over forty thousand refugees from other countries on Iraqi soil, including fifteen thousand Palestinians. This is what Iraq looks like today.
We therefore need immediate political and humanitarian action in order to alleviate the tragic situation faced by the refugees. We should remember that half a million of the refugees are children. We should ensure that internally displaced people are registered, which will give them the right to obtain food rations. Today, they are denied this right. We should also exert influence on neighbouring countries, so that they cease to place entry restrictions on the refugees, thus forcing many to remain on the borders.
The Union must make sure that the aid we send to Iraq, to the Iraqi people, is comprehensive, sustainable and coordinated with the actions of the United States. The Union should, once and for all, reject anti-American prejudice. It is the only way in which we will be able to relieve the incredibly difficult situation faced by millions of refugees and therefore avoid a large-scale humanitarian crisis.
We also call on the Iraqi Government to take immediate action to ensure the safety of displaced people and to cease to discriminate against people on the basis of their background. The European Commission, meanwhile, should increase humanitarian aid to all displaced people in Iraq and provide support to neighbouring countries that already provide this kind of aid.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FI) Mr President, the plight of the Iraqi refugees is still a serious one, except for one move in the right direction. The recommendation by the UN's main delegate for refugee affairs to give refugee status to the asylum seekers of southern and central Iraq under the 1951 Convention was a welcome solution. As is the offer of additional forms of protection in cases where refugee status is not given.
I wish to raise two matters in particular, from within Iraq's borders. Firstly, the status of religious minorities is becoming ever more intolerable. Assyrian, Armenian, Orthodox and other Christian groups, as well as Mandaeans and Jews are being glaringly discriminated against in the labour market and elsewhere. In certain areas the authorities are totally incapable of protecting minorities from violence inflicted by Muslim soldiers. Freedom of religion is in fact virtually non-existent.
Secondly, I find incredible the threats which the Iraqi authorities have made to freeze the supply of vital goods to Iranian refugees. These members of the opposition have refugee status under international law and an inalienable right to protection.
John Attard-Montalto
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, we must admit that what is happening and what has happened in Iraq is much worse than civil war - a question that is often posed. Of course, there is not civil war. It is worse. There is total chaos. Nobody has any idea or any plan as to how to unravel the mess we put Iraq in. I use the word 'put' because what went on was not needed, not required, nor was it wanted. It was an invasion which has proved a terrible nightmare for those who have participated in it.
When one makes a mistake, one has to carry the responsibility for it. It is about time that those people who participated, those countries in the coalition as well as the willing partners, show responsibility for what has happened to the Iraqi people, especially the refugees who are seeking help - even if they find any help, they find only a minimum amount.
It is about time that those people who made the initial mistake, who are responsible for the chaotic situation, show that responsibility and the first people who should be helped are the refugees.
Kathy Sinnott
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, Commissioner, almost hidden amongst the constant news of violence in Iraq is the almost unheard voice of Iraq's Christian minority. This small population has no protection and is almost unknown to the international community. They are experiencing intense waves of violent persecution. Christian Iraqis are faced with the choice of exile - if they can manage to escape - conversion or persecution.
The persecution takes many forms: violence, discrimination in the workplace, confiscation of property, etc. For a Chaldean Christian priest, Ragheed Aziz Ganni, this persecution resulted in death.
What will the European Community do to help the Chaldean, Assyrian and Orthodox Christian communities? The Iraqi Government states its commitment to ending violence, but the lack of security makes it impossible to enforce peace on the ground and impossible to protect vulnerable populations. They need our help.
Jean-Claude Martinez
on behalf of the ITS Group. - (FR) Mr President, it is a good thing to table a resolution on Iraq for the sake of the humanitarian situation, refugees, international aid and so on. Who would not agree, moreover, with recital A and its finding that 100 people are killed and 200 are wounded each day, 70% of the population is without water, 3 million people are undernourished and 2 million are refugees, including 500 000 children in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere?
Who has done this, though? Who is responsible? Who has spread chaos? Is it Saddam Hussein? Is it the Ba'ath Party? Chaos stems from war, an unjust war in the eyes of the theologians of the Middle Ages, an illegal war according to the UN Charter, a war started on the back of a lie told by two Heads of State, those of the US and the United Kingdom. Who supported this war, here, in the European Parliament? Who justified, who requested, who approved the intervention that led to chaos? The current French foreign affairs minister, Mr Kouchner, and some of the signatories to this resolution did.
What are we supposed to say? That it is good to be humanitarian and to deal with the effects, but that it is better to be preventive and to avert the causes? This is the problem of political Europe! In Europe we are so fond of human rights that, everywhere - in Palestine, in Iraq, in Africa, in the field of economic globalisation - we support policies that, violating as they do these human rights, enable us to reaffirm our immense love of these very human rights, which are ultimately violated with our prior support. It is therefore good that post-trauma centres for refugees are being proposed in paragraph 16, but provision must also be made for political prevention centres, here, for our leaders, so that they can be taught wisdom, lucidity and the courage to say 'no', and taught to reject naïve optimism, which destroys everything in its wake.
Justas Vincas Paleckis
(LT) I support the resolution, and I sympathise with more than four million Iraqis who have been forced to flee from their birthplaces. That is more people than there are in my homeland, Lithuania. The number of refugees is growing, and half of them are forced to flee abroad. The situation in Iraq is not improving. The refugees are condemned to vegetate in poverty, usually without employment, while their children grow up illiterate. For these reasons, terrorist organisations are able to successfully recruit followers.
Humanitarian assistance for refugees is shamefully small compared to the amount spent on weapons by the USA and UK, the countries that launched the war on Iraq. The 60 million US dollars contributed by donors in the USA is just a drop in the ocean.
This year about 40 000 refugees from Iraq will arrive in European Union countries - twice as many as last year - while the USA has accepted barely a several dozen Iraqis this year.
It would be good for US and UK leaders to visit Iraq and neighbouring countries and see with their own eyes the suffering of the refugees. Maybe then they would behave differently.
Janez Potočnik
Member of the Commission. Mr President, the security deterioration in Iraq has provoked a large scale displacement: approximately two million Iraqis have fled within the borders of Iraq and approximately two million into the neighbouring countries, with 750 000 people in Jordan and 1.4 million people in Syria. This displacement may result in a humanitarian crisis, and could present a threat to regional stability and the Commission is extremely concerned about the scale of human suffering.
We are following the situation closely on the ground and constantly reviewing any developments. We are in close contact with other key players of the international community, such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. In this regard, the Commission has actively participated at the UNHCR International Conference last April in Geneva.
In terms of existing assistance, in order to alleviate the difficulties of the displaced, the Commission, via EuropeAid, allocated EUR 10 million in 2006 to support internally displaced persons. In February 2007, as a rapid response to the deteriorating situation and following the UNHCR appeal in January, the Commission, via ECHO, announced an additional allocation of EUR 10.2 million, composed of EUR 4 million for the internally displaced and EUR 6.2 million for the externally displaced Iraqis. Furthermore, the Commission is continuing its support of the delivery of basic services inside Iraq.
We understand that this support remains limited in the face of the scale of human suffering. Nevertheless, it constitutes only a first, immediate response to the humanitarian situation. The Commission is currently looking at various options on how to better assist the Iraqi refugees in the future. However, delivery of assistance inside Iraq is severely constrained by the security situation. Many of our partners, including UNHCR, have only a very minimal presence in Iraq.
Through various technical and political missions, the Commission attempts to better assess the situation and, at the same time, convey its readiness to further support the Iraqi refugees. Commissioner Michel visited the region himself at the end of April. Several technical missions to Jordan and Syria have also followed since then.
We remain, therefore, committed to working with the countries that are accommodating Iraqi refugees. The Commission has already and will retain regular discussions with the Syrian and Jordan authorities about the situation.
We are looking forward particularly to participate in the Sharm El-Sheikh agreed Working Group on Refugees, which, according to the latest indication, is scheduled to meet on 22 July in Amman. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner has already expressed the Commission's readiness to provide technical assistance to the working group in order to facilitate the process.
We believe that the only durable solution for the refugees is peace and reconciliation inside Iraq. Towards this end, we will continue our support to the Iraqi refugees. I agree with you that we have a moral duty to help.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debate.


3. Defence of the principle of subsidiarity (vote)
Martin Schulz
(DE) Madam President, I would like to repeat my point of order:
(Uproar in the Chamber)
I am pleased that I am always able to wake my fellow Members up. This is good for the circulation.
Once again, under the terms of Rule 177(4), I request that the vote is postponed and that the legitimacy of the resolution and the vote is investigated in the meantime.
Manfred Weber
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to look at the procedural argument. I would like to remind everyone that we have just voted on the Cashman report. This is a report created by Parliament in the course of an ongoing legislative procedure. Our Legal Service has stated that this is not permitted, but the socialists insisted on introducing it. While we were discussing the freedom of the press in Italy and the Commissioner responsible explained that the European Union has no authority in this area, the socialists still felt that it was worthwhile to attack Berlusconi. Whenever it suits the socialists, it is a question of there being no authority. Whenever other people are being opposed, the authority is in place. For this reason, we should not give in to them.
However, the second argument is worthy of serious discussion. Are we responsible for the Convention on Human Rights? I would like to remind my fellow Members that, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union will become party to the Convention on Human Rights. This means that if it is legitimate for the Italian Parliament to discuss this, because Italy is party to the Convention on Human Rights, then it is also legitimate for the European Parliament to discuss this, as it will be party to the Convention on Human Rights in future.
My third and final argument concerns the fact that we are not lawyers, we are politicians. This judgment affects millions of people and, therefore, we should vote on it today.
(Applause)


Statement by the President
President
On behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to send a message of solidarity to the victims of hurricane Gustav in the Caribbean.
Nearly 100 people lost their lives in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, the Cayman Islands and Cuba, and thousands of others are now homeless. Once again, the citizens of these developing countries with which we maintain close links through the Cotonou Agreement - the ACP countries group - are suffering the ravages of a new natural disaster in these regions.
The European Union is closely monitoring the situation in the affected countries and is sending humanitarian aid. The European Parliament will, of course, be closely monitoring the supply of humanitarian assistance to countries in the region, particularly through the work of its Committee on Development and the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.


10. Protection of animals used for scientific purposes (
- Before the vote:
Neil Parish
rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs who have been very willing to work with me on what is an incredibly technical and difficult dossier. By working together we have been able to come up with what, I believe, is a good compromise.
Animal testing is a highly controversial and emotional area which does involve a moral dilemma. We have done our best to create a position which will improve welfare for animals used for testing and, at the same time, ensure that top-quality and reliable medical research can continue within Europe. We have built upon the Commission's proposal in many areas and, most importantly, we have clarified the severity classifications. We had a good compromise in the Agriculture Committee and it should not be picked apart at this stage.
We all want to work together to refine, reduce and replace animal testing. However, we must remember that many vaccines and cures for diseases have been developed using animals, and especially primates - for example, vaccines for polio, diphtheria, hepatitis B, along with deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. All are examples of the benefits of animal research. To allay concerns that many Members have with the use of embryonic stem cells, Amendment 170, if supported, will ensure that ethical decisions on this issue are made by Member States themselves and not by the Commission.
We have a huge opportunity here to improve legislation for animal welfare and research. We should put our party differences aside and support this report. Industry, medical research and animal welfare organisations are convinced that this is a step forward and that we will update and improve the current legislation. If we do not deal with it in this Parliament, the legislation could be put back by a further two years or more, which would be a retrograde step. I urge Members of the House to support this report.
Finally, as this is probably the last time I will speak in the Chamber because I am retiring to go into national politics, can I thank you for the courtesy with which you have treated me and thank the Members of the House, who have also treated me with great courtesy.
(Applause)
President
Thank you very much, Mr Parish. When you go back to your national Parliament, we wish you the same zest for work that you had here in the European Parliament.


14. Amendment of the Rules following the establishment of a common Transparency Register (
President
Dear colleagues, I have a statement to read.
The Casini report on the interinstitutional agreement on a common transparency register between the European Parliament and the Commission represents an important step forward in regulating relations of MEPs with outside interests. Before we proceed to the vote on the report, I would like to underline that the ongoing activities of the working group on the code of conduct for MEPs and outside interests do not intend to put into question the substance of the agreement reached with the Commission and the content of the Casini report. They rather aim at complementing the framework by adding new aspects and, in particular, at strengthening the applicable rules as regards access of interest groups to the European Parliament premises.
(Interjection from the floor: 'Amen!' Laughter)


Review of recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspection in the Member States (debate)
President
The next item is the Oral Question - B6-0479/2008) by Mr Ouzký to the Commission, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States.
Miroslav Ouzký
author. - Madam President, it is difficult to stand up now after that particularly lively debate and switch to another topic!
I would like to stress that the good and consistent enforcement of environmental legislation is essential for its credibility, for a level playing field and for ensuring that the environmental objectives will be met. The issue of environmental inspections is, therefore, very important for the work of my committee, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
On 14 November the Commission published the communication on environmental inspections in the Member States. This communication reviewed Recommendation 2001/331/EC of the European Commission, providing minimum criteria for environmental inspections.
The communication contains some worrying messages. It states that the information submitted by the Member States on the implementation of the recommendation is incomplete or difficult to compare. It states that there are still large differences in the way environmental inspections are being carried out in the EU. It states that the scope of the recommendation is inadequate and that it does not include many important activities such as Natura 2000 and the control of illegal waste shipping. It states that inspection plans have not been implemented and where they do exist that they are often not publicly available.
My committee noted with concern the conclusions from the Commission stating that the full implementation of the environmental legislation in the Community cannot be ensured. This would not only lead to continuing damage to the environment, but also to the distortion of competition within and between the Member States.
My committee therefore formulated four questions to the Commission, which can be summarised as follows. First, why does the Commission only wish to amend the recommendation - why does it not propose a directive on environmental inspections? Second, why has the Commission opted instead for attaching environmental inspection requirements to existing directives individually, a process that will take a lot of time? Third, why is the Commission not prepared to use a directive to define terms such as 'inspection' and 'audit', which are interpreted in different ways by Member States? Fourth, why is the Commission not prepared to transform IMPEL into an effective EU environmental inspection force?
I would like to thank the Commission in advance for its reply and I would like to conclude by emphasising that, in my opinion, the implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation should get the same political attention as the adoption of the legislation in the Commission, in the Council and in Parliament.
Siim Kallas
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I am very happy to be presenting my green credentials in addition to my anti-fraud credentials, so changing topics is also a pleasure. I would like to thank the European Parliament for this discussion on the very important topic of environmental inspections.
Recognising the need for EU-wide action, Parliament and the Council adopted the recommendation on environmental inspections in 2001. The objective was to lay down common criteria for environmental inspections in order to ensure a better and more consistent implementation of environmental legislation through the Community.
At the time there was a long discussion on whether these criteria should be binding or non-binding. As a compromise, a non-binding recommendation was adopted. Member States pledged to implement it fully and the Commission was asked to review this decision on the basis of the experience with the implementation of the recommendation by the Member States.
The Commission launched the review process with its communication of November 2007. In this communication the Commission concluded that, although the recommendation has led to improvements in environmental inspections in some Member States, it has unfortunately not been fully implemented in all Member States.
The Commission thus put forward its preliminary views on how the situation could be improved. The measures that we deem necessary are: firstly, a modification of the recommendation to make it stronger and clearer, including a better reporting mechanism; secondly, where necessary, to complement the recommendation with legally binding inspection requirements in individual directives; and thirdly, to continue supporting the exchange of information and best practice between inspectorates in the context of IMPEL.
The Commission is now gathering the input of the other institutions and of stakeholders on these initial proposals and will then present its final proposals.
Now, coming to the questions raised, I would like to make the following remarks.
Firstly, I would like to clarify that the views presented in the Commission's communication of November 2007 do not exclude the possibility of the Commission presenting a proposal for a directive on environmental inspections in the future. The Commission's view, as expressed in its communication, is that there is a need for EU-wide legally binding rules to ensure effective environmental inspections. In that respect we have the same position as Parliament.
The question is, however, whether such rules should be horizontal and cover all environmental inspections or whether they should be sectoral and apply to specific installations or activities.
Both of these approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. A horizontal approach would be simpler and quicker to put in place. On the other hand, the sectoral approach would enable us to better address the specific aspects of the different installations or activities. For instance, the requirements for inspections of waste shipments are completely different from those for the inspection of industrial installations. By being more targeted we could set more effective requirements.
To some extent, the sectoral approach is the one that we have already been practising for several years. For example, in the Seveso II Directive, we have provisions on inspections of installations in order to prevent accidents. These provisions have proven to be very successful. We have now included inspection requirements in our proposal to revise the IPPC Directive.
Another sector where we see the need for further action is the implementation of the EU Waste Shipment Regulation. The growing problem of illegal waste shipments is a risk for human health and the environment.
There is clear evidence of illegal shipments recorded during joint EU waste shipment inspections coordinated by IMPEL. Recent trade data and studies on the export of certain waste streams, in particular electrical and electronic waste and end-of-life vehicles, indicate that significant volumes leave the EU.
In many cases these shipments seem to violate the EU Waste Shipment Regulation's export bans. Serious incidents of EU exports for dumping of waste in developing countries, such as the Côte d'Ivoire incident in 2006, as well as a recent Greenpeace report about waste illegally shipped to West Africa, underline the severity of the problem.
The Commission is currently examining the need for additional initiatives, including improved legislative requirements, in order to further and strengthen the inspections and controls of waste shipments.
As we stated in our communication, we also see a need to establish common definitions for terms that are relevant for inspections. For this purpose we think that a horizontal recommendation would be an appropriate instrument.
As regards the idea of transforming IMPEL into an EU environmental inspection force, IMPEL was created as an informal network of Member States' inspection authorities. Its objective is to facilitate exchange of information and best practice between the people who are actually applying environmental legislation in the Member States. I think we should preserve this role of IMPEL of bringing together the expertise of inspectors and allowing for an informal exchange of ideas at European level.
From the Commission's side we will continue our support to IMPEL and reinforce our successful cooperation. This year IMPEL was transformed from an informal network into an international association. This will not only give IMPEL more visibility but also open new possibilities of activities for IMPEL. To go further and create an EU environmental inspection force with powers of entry and powers to refer Member States to the Court of Justice is an interesting and ambitious idea. However, it would raise important legal and institutional questions.
We should also look at the instruments for the improvement of the enforcement of EU environmental legislation at our disposal at present and consider whether these could be further developed or put to better use. For example, the horizontal infringement cases that the Commission launched against Member States for systematic failure to enforce certain obligations, such as for the presence of thousands of illegal landfills in some Member States, have led to the establishment of improved enforcement strategies in the Member States.
Another example of an initiative that has led to better enforcement is the joint inspections of waste shipments throughout the Community organised within the framework of IMPEL with the support of the Commission. We would consider ways to reinforce this cooperation and encourage all Member States to participate in it.
Caroline Jackson
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I find what the Commissioner has said rather disappointing. I know that he is standing in for Mr Dimas and could not help but read out what was given to him, but I think we need rather more than that.
Environmental legislation is something that most people - perhaps all people - in this Chamber are in favour of - perhaps even including UKIP, who are apparently not here and are perhaps ironing their Union Jacks.
The trouble is that we do not know what is happening in the Member States, and the proposals from the European Commission go only a very little way to improving that situation. We, in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, are still in favour of having a directive rather than a recommendation. I do not, myself, see why we could not have a general directive regarding environmental inspections and specific rules attached to specific directives where that is appropriate.
Let me then turn to the question of an EU environmental inspection force. It is perhaps a little strange that this idea comes forward from the mouth of a British Conservative - vote Blue, go Green - but we do need this, because, otherwise, the Commission is entirely dependent on the Member States for the information that they choose to give it.
It is extraordinary that nine years after the Landfill Directive came into force, Spain is now being prosecuted before the European Court of Justice for having 60 000 illegal landfills, taking up more than half-a-million tonnes of illegally dumped waste. We think we know what is happening south of Naples. The Birds Directive adopted in 1979 is still being widely neglected.
The Commission often finds that its prosecutions before the Court of Justice on environmental matters are initiated by private citizens. I do not think that this is good enough. We should tell the people of Europe that we cannot be sure that the environmental legislation which we are adopting is being complied with. Given the fact that we are now looking at climate change legislation, that is very serious. We must return to the issue of an EU environmental inspection force, which I fully support.
Genowefa Grabowska
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Madam President, on behalf of my group and as a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, may I express my full support for the questions. I share Members' concerns expressed in these questions.
The Commission's Communication of November 2007 does indeed give rise to many controversies and to doubts among all those concerned about the environment and those who wish environmental law not simply to be made in the European Parliament, but to be enforced, and to be enforced in the spirit in which it was intended.
To achieve this, we need an effective system of monitoring introduction and compliance with the law, which we still have not developed. We have national systems which operate divergently and differently, while at the EU level we have a recommendation. As we all know, recommendations are not binding. This is stipulated in Article 249 of the Treaty of Rome, which specifies the differences between a directive and a recommendation. I would therefore ask the Commission to treat the matter with all seriousness and to present the whole system of compliance monitoring, inspection and the resultant reports in the form of a binding instrument, a directive on compliance with environmental law in the European Union.
We cannot leave the matter where it is now and we cannot expect that amending one of the 2001 recommendations, that is, adding new Member State duties to the recommendation, will change anything. Commissioner, it will change nothing at all. The fact is that it we want to have effective environmental laws, we must have an effective enforcement and monitoring system.
To repeat: you have asked whether we should introduce sectoral or global monitoring regulations. I on the other hand want to ask whether you would like to protect the whole of the environment or only individual sectors. And this gives you the answer.
Johannes Blokland
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Madam President, in recent years, we in the European Parliament have approved a great deal of environmental legislation. The environment is at the top of the agenda, and rightly so. The important thing, though, is not just to produce legislation: it also needs to be implemented, and this is exactly where the problems appear to be. According to information from the European Commission, the implementation of environmental policy leaves something to be desired at times. Current environmental inspection policy is contained in the recommendation, which is interpreted quite differently in various Member States. It has also been reported that environmental inspections have been carried out incompletely, all of which means that, despite existing environmental legislation, the environment does not always benefit. If we want the quality of the environment to improve, we must, as an absolute priority, put effective controls in place to ensure that this legislation is implemented.
Commissioner, you claim to be presenting your green credentials. In this respect, though, there is still quite a bit to be done. I myself was rapporteur for a regulation on the transfer of waste in 2007 and before, and there is much room for improvement in that area. In the context of better implementation of environmental policy, would you be prepared to make the existing recommendation binding?
Bogusław Sonik
(PL) Madam President, I share the view of the European Commission that large discrepancies exist between the different methods of monitoring environmental compliance used by different Member States, which make it impossible to ensure consistent introduction and enforcement of EU law.
In my work as an MEP I have had the opportunity to study the results of a number of IMPEL projects, including one concerning the crossborder movement of waste through sea ports. I have discovered that cooperation between the various IMPEL inspection services consists not only of the sharing of experience, but also, and perhaps even most importantly, of joint monitoring operations and exchange of information about environmental crimes and offences.
Some dishonest companies deliberately transfer their unlawful operations to countries where they know the control system to be weaker and where they can continue to operate with impunity. If control systems in all Member States were uniform, this would not be happening. This is another argument in favour of the European Union having an efficient and uniform system for monitoring facilities for compliance with environmental requirements.
Inspections are an important instrument in the process of introduction and enforcement of EU laws, but in spite of this Member States give them different political priorities. This is why I fully support the European Commission's proposal amending the existing recommendations to make them more effective. I agree with the proposal to include legally binding requirements concerning the inspection of specific facilities and operations in sectoral regulations. When we have done this, we will be able to give inspections a higher political priority and improve enforcement of environmental laws throughout the Community.
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
- (RO) Inspections represent an important element for guaranteeing application of and compliance with Community environmental legislation. In this sense, the Commission recommendation providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States was an important step forward when it was adopted in 2001.
However, the evaluation of this recommendation's application has highlighted more matters for concern. The Commission's Communication records the fact that there are still large disparities in the way environmental inspections are being carried out at local, region and national level. In addition, it has been noted that the national measures adopted in the Communication's wording differ very greatly, both in terms of application and control. The shortcomings with this recommendation do not seem to have been remedied satisfactorily in the Commission's Communication. Even if this is proposed to accommodate the problems mentioned above, it is missing one key element, which has brought about modest success for the recommendation. I mean the very legal nature of this document.
I believe therefore that only revising this recommendation will do no more than maintain the current state of uncertainty. Only a directive can bring about a significant and effective improvement for environmental inspections.
Siim Kallas
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I wish to thank the honourable Members for their remarks and observations concerning environmental issues, which are so sensitive, as we are all in favour of improving the environment. Two remarks concerning them raised observations.
The Commission shares the view that legally binding requirements for environmental inspections are really needed and are valuable. The Commission is working in that direction. The question is where to have those binding requirements as regards the transformation of IMPEL into a European inspection force. The Commission still takes the view that it is better to preserve IMPEL as it is.
President
I have received one motion for a resolutionpursuant to Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12 noon.
(The sitting was suspended at 11.55 a.m. pending voting time, and resumed at 12.05 p.m.)