3. Ukraine: the cases of Yulia Tymoshenko and other members of the former government (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on five motions for resolution on Ukraine: the cases of Yulia Tymoshenko and other members of the former government.
Kristian Vigenin
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I want to state that the development of democracy in Ukraine is a priority for us on which we cannot compromise. No doubt should be cast on the Ukrainian people's achievements either by external or internal factors.
The current government is attempting, by means of a series of initiatives, to improve both the legislative foundation and the effectiveness of the battle against corruption. This is why it must receive encouragement. Removing the Ukrainian elite's sense of impunity may provide an opportunity for the beneficial reforms which will bring the country closer to the European Union and offer its citizens prospects for the future.
However, we currently risk being accused of protecting the leading figures from the previous government with a European political 'screen', including former Prime Minister Tymoshenko personally. If we basically expect the Ukrainian Government not to interfere in the work of the independent court and prosecutor's office, what right does the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) have to call today for the European Parliament itself to get involved in such political interference? I cannot accept that we should pardon all the decisions made by the previous government in Ukraine. This is precisely the sense of the text being tabled, which calls, in practical terms, for the individual abuses of power to be concealed behind collective guilt.
A more balanced approach has allowed us to have a joint motion for a resolution today which will be constructive and targeted at the opportunities for closer cooperation between Ukraine and the European Union, while judicial reform is carried out in the country and the anti-corruption measures implemented. However, it has been based on an ideological, confrontational approach.
I call for the so-called 'motion for a joint resolution' to be rejected and for us to rally support for the proposal from the S&D Group.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Bernd Posselt
(DE) Mr President, I would simply like to ask my fellow Member what the continuous declarations concerning the universality of human rights mean when, in the case of Ukraine, the issue suddenly only concerns internal affairs. Saying that no one should intervene in the internal affairs of a country is the old Soviet argument. In cases which concern human rights, we will always intervene, in particular with regard to a partner as important as Ukraine.
Kristian Vigenin
Mr President, I want to say that we are not talking about interference in Ukraine's internal affairs, but about non-interference in the operation of the independent court and prosecutor's office in Ukraine. I think that there is a clear difference. We do not want political interference, either from the government in Ukraine or from the European Parliament. However, this is exactly what we are doing with the texts which have been tabled in the so-called 'joint motion for a resolution'.
If we are talking about universality - I do not know how many minutes I have, Mr President - but if we look around, there are European Union Member States where we can see very similar cases. I will believe you, Mr Posselt, that you adhere to the principles and want us to enforce human rights everywhere - both in the European Union and Ukraine - if you table such a resolution for Bulgaria as well where prime ministers and former ministers are being investigated on absurd charges.
Jaromír Kohlíček
author. - (CS) Mr President, there are moments when I go beyond mere amazement. One such moment for me came with the opportunity to read through the motion for a resolution on Ukraine. Until then, I had no idea that the ministers and prime ministers of some countries enjoyed special lifetime immunity.
It is unquestionably remarkable that the European Parliament, on the one hand, demands consistent action against corruption but, on the other hand, when former government member Mr Danilishin faces charges, he is granted political asylum, and in the Czech Republic - my own country - at that, without any preliminary investigation of the case. Incidentally, Mr Danilishin has never been a member of any political party, so the charge brought against him is entirely economic in nature.
Let us seek consistent sanctions for corrupt behaviour both inside and outside the European Union. That is entirely proper, but we should read through the constitution of the country concerned, and try to establish the facts. Only when corruption has genuinely been eradicated in European countries should we try reverting to the imperious recommendations granted to various countries in the resolutions adopted, unfortunately, by us.
The Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left agrees with the general parts of the resolution, but has serious doubts over the points specifically mentioned, and therefore will not support the resolution.
Michael Gahler
author. - (DE) Mr President, unfortunately, we have grounds for expressing strong criticism of the political situation in Ukraine and, in particular, of the means used to curtail the constitutional rights of opposition politicians.
The opposition leader, Mrs Tymoshenko, and other prominent people have had their human rights violated and have been prevented from doing their political work by means of politically motivated criminal proceedings and antiquated procedural law. Anyone who turns the constitutional right of an accused person to access their files into the exact opposite, in other words, into a compulsion to access the files, and anyone who does this, as in the case of Mr Lutsenko, by means of imprisonment and, in the case of Mrs Tymoshenko, by a total of 44 summonses so far, clearly demonstrates what sort of person he is and the fact that he is abusing the judicial system in the old-fashioned way for the purposes of political disputes.
President Yanukovych and his authorities must bring an end to this persecution. He is personally responsible for the well-being of Mrs Tymoshenko, Mr Lutsenko and their colleagues and supporters.
Mr Yanukovych, your behaviour in these cases is the litmus test of your credibility and your determination to introduce European values into Ukraine.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Paweł Robert Kowal
(PL) Mr President, I agree with the fellow Member on many issues. We all know how important it was for the consolidation of democracy and human rights for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to be able to achieve accession to the Union, and before that to have the perspective of accession. I would like to ask Mr Gahler if he is willing to declare that he is in favour of giving such a political perspective to Ukrainian society and to politicians of all persuasions and that the road to the European Union is open to them, and if he will endorse statements of this kind in the European Parliament.
Michael Gahler
author. - (DE) Mr President, the current behaviour of the government of Ukraine will definitely not make the country's move into Europe any easier.
Kristiina Ojuland
author. - Mr President, we are not here today to judge the actual innocence or guilt of Yulia Tymoshenko. It has gone well beyond that point because the Ukrainian authorities have overlooked the correct legal procedures and taken measures that violate the rule of law.
We protest against the elimination of political opponents in Ukraine with the help of the judicial system. Defendants must be granted their legal rights, as enshrined in law, and the measures taken against them must be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the crimes that they have been accused of.
The purpose of this resolution is to draw the attention of the Ukrainian authorities to some apparent breaches of the rule of law which have distanced Ukraine from European values, and which, if they become commonplace, would curtail their country's prospects of future European integration.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
author. - Mr President, the reason we, the Greens, support this joint resolution is that we consider the fight against corruption a fundamental factor in the establishment and consolidation of the rule of law in Ukraine, with a view precisely to deepening its relations with the European Union and enhancing its integration into EU policies.
We stress, therefore, that those efforts require fair, impartial and independent legal proceedings. That is why we note with concern the widespread opinion that the recent case brought against Mrs Tymoshenko and some members of the government are politically motivated, and warn against a possible use of penal law as a tool to achieve political ends. That is also why we call on the Ukrainian authorities to ensure that judicial measures are not used selectively and that investigations, prosecutions and trials are held in maximum transparency.
Finally, that is also the reason why we call on the Ukrainian authorities to avoid any perception of judicial measures being used selectively and insist that the maximum transparency of investigations, persecutions and trials be guaranteed; we also call on the Commission to assist in the reform of the judiciary in Ukraine by making use of EU capacity-building programmes and to consider creating a high-level EU advisory group for Ukraine to assist the country in its efforts to align itself with EU legislation, including on the judiciary.
Elena Băsescu
Mr President, the restrictive measures taken against Yulia Tymoshenko mark the continuation by the current government of a series of actions targeted against members of the former government, with the aim of intimidating and weakening the opposition. We are deeply concerned by the use of the justice system for political ends through selective actions aimed solely at members of the opposition. They jeopardise the consolidation of the rule of law and democracy in Ukraine.
We call on the authorities in Kiev to ensure that the justice system operates on an impartial, independent and transparent basis by giving the defendants a fair trial. At the same time, we call on them to abide by the rules of a democratic state and to ensure respect for human rights, which are obligations they assumed as part of the Eastern Partnership. We must stress that respect for these principles is vital to promoting cooperation between the EU and Ukraine, including with a view to signing the Association Agreement.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
Mr President, one of the priorities of the forthcoming Polish Presidency is to strengthen the Eastern Partnership. Ukraine, as Poland's nearest neighbour, is one of the most important partners and has the opportunity to gain more than the other partners from this situation. While I share the opinion about the necessity of bringing Ukraine closer to the Union, I also think that this must involve the adoption by Ukraine of European standards in the field of the rule of law and transparency in public life. It is with great concern that I have followed the corruption scandals in Ukraine and the trials of politicians who are being accused in a way which is sometimes ludicrous. The Union is being very careful in the way it comments on events in Ukraine. Furthermore, the statement of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on Yulia Tymoshenko was exceptionally cautious.
However, I think that as part of future cooperation between the Union and Ukraine, instruments should be created which, in the longer term, would contribute to a strengthening of the rule of law in Ukraine. I have in mind, here, the idea of creating, for example, an advisory group to help bring Ukrainian law closer to European standards, and assistance in various areas of law, including the training of judges, for example. I think Ukraine's European aspirations, which, on the one hand, are hedged around with conditions, should, on the other, show a willingness to help in this. I hope the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union will adopt such a stance.
Leonidas Donskis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, Ukraine is a democracy. Therefore, we signal our concern to a partner, an ally, and a friend. As we all know, nobody is perfect in this world, but it is in accordance with Europe's political standards and norms, and also in accordance with the logic and values of democracy, that we expect the Ukrainian authorities not to abuse their power by encouraging and holding politically motivated trials, and instead to give those who are suspects a fair trial, rather than political retribution.
Yulia Tymoshenko and other members of the former government of Ukraine, who had long been the rivals of President Yanukovych, should not be regarded as collectively, or by association, guilty and responsible for what is perceived as a liability in political practice. First and foremost, they are all citizens of a democratic state. By no means are we offering a defence speech here. Instead, we are merely reminding our friends how democracy works.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, six years on from the Orange Revolution, Ukrainian politics remain characterised by rivalry and tension. Former Prime Minister Tymoshenko and some members of the former government that she led are now being pursued through the courts for criminal acts allegedly committed whilst in office. These charges to me have a smell of being politically motivated. I fear that President Yanukovych is trying to neutralise the only Ukrainian political figure with enough gravitas, courage and popularity to challenge his authority. We should not forget that the Orange Revolution was a direct response to Yanukovych's attempt to steal, by fraud, in 2004 the Presidential election. He was never prosecuted for that crime.
Mrs Tymoshenko has substantial popular support in western Ukraine and carries the hopes of millions of her compatriots with her. It is very curious that the latest charges relating to fraud against the medicines budget were not levelled against Zinovii Mytnyk, the Deputy Minister for Heath at the time, who signed off on the deal, because he has now re-emerged, curiously, as the new Health Minister in Yanukovych's Government.
If Yanukovych wants to reduce Mrs Tymoshenko's political potency, he should seek to do so in an open and democratic battle of ideas, not through the political manipulation of the justice system. And my question to Mr Vigenin, as the Socialist Group has links to Yanukovych's Party of the Regions, is: do you have confidence in the political impartiality of the General Prosecutor's Office in Ukraine? Mr Vigenin, could you answer that?
Jaroslav Paška
on behalf of the EFD Group. - (SK) Mr President, Ukraine's political scene is characterised by a gubernatorial style of leadership, deeply rooted in the former Soviet era. Even those who led the Orange Revolution, President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko, exhibited some peculiar political behaviour.
Indeed, it is an open secret in Ukraine and abroad that the real cause of the gas crisis that descended on us in early 2009 was a rift between the family clans of Prime Minister Tymoshenko and President Yushchenko, as they fought to control the profits from the transport of gas. I agree that exploiting the baseless criminalisation of political opponents in order to repress opposition forces is unacceptable, but I find it highly presumptuous to claim that none of Tymoshenko's team put a foot wrong during their chaotic period in government.
Tymoshenko's group lost the elections precisely because ordinary people had had enough of widespread corruption and the theft of public property by certain public officials.
Therefore, if we really want to help Ukraine to develop an open, democratic society, we should concentrate on systemic recommendations and not tell them that those senior officials who may be endearing to some of you or with whom you may be friends should be treated any differently from other criminal suspects. Indeed, here in the European Union, we also say that all are equal, and that includes equality before the law.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Mr President, the methods used to conduct the investigation into alleged violations of the law by Mrs Tymoshenko and other opposition politicians have completely discredited the Ukrainian judiciary, the police, and the current government. Such persecutory practices belonged to the arsenal of totalitarian communist regimes in the last century, and those EU citizens who lived under those regimes are particularly sensitive to this. We see this as yet another abuse of public power to discredit political opponents, which is absolutely unacceptable in a democratic society. I draw attention to the fact that this fundamentally challenges the independence of the Ukrainian judiciary in the eyes of the world.
Under these circumstances, I appeal to EU Member States to join the Czech Republic in standing ready to grant political asylum to persecuted Ukrainian opposition politicians and to consider sanctions against Ukraine for violations of international law, if the situation in Ukraine does not change.
Paweł Robert Kowal
(PL) Mr President, we are wondering what the essence is of what we are talking about because the facts are, after all, generally known, and we are coming down in favour of those who today are having problems, and of those who are finding themselves at the wrong end of the abuse of authority. However, we must learn the lessons of this situation, and lessons must be learned, above all, by the authorities in Ukraine. A condition for building a normal democratic system in Ukraine is respect for the rights of the opposition, and we must say this very clearly from here, today. However, in this Chamber, we must also say something very clearly to ourselves. This is the experience of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and also East Germany. There can be no real modernisation in this part of Europe if we cannot say that for Ukrainians, and not for this or that authority, there is a place in Europe. Perhaps not today, perhaps not in several years, but that perspective does exist. Without talking clearly about that perspective - and I am talking to all friends from every part of Europe - we are, in fact, going to be working together to maintain badly functioning democratic systems in the East. Do not be under any illusions about this. It is a very simple matter. So, as well as holding this debate, we also have something else to do - to say clearly: the door is open, do not worry.
Marek Henryk Migalski
(PL) Mr President, I would like to start with the words of Mr Donskis, who called the Ukrainians our friends and allies. This is indeed the case, and this is how we should treat our friends in Kiev. I would like to ask everyone a question. I have similar comments and I share the quandary of most of you who have spoken, today. I, too, am not satisfied by the way human rights are being observed and by how democracy is functioning in Kiev, but what have you done - what has this House done, and what have all those who have today, with such high principles, condemned the situation with Mrs Tymoshenko - what have you done to send a clear signal to Kiev and other cities of Ukraine that we are their friends and allies, that we are waiting for them, and that this House should one day be enlarged by the presence of Ukrainian Members? I ask this because respect for human rights and respect for democracy in Ukraine are, to a large extent, dependent on us. I must ask you to understand this.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Bernd Posselt
(DE) Mr President, I would simply like to ask my fellow Member whether he is not aware that we have adopted a resolution in Parliament with a large majority - I myself voted in favour of this resolution - in which we clearly underlined the European perspective of Ukraine. We have done this not once, but many times.
Marek Henryk Migalski
(PL) Mr President, Mr Posselt, firstly, I do know, and secondly, thank you for that resolution. I am asking, however, if this is all we could have done? Is this really all that can be sent from this Chamber and from the EU institutions to the Ukrainians, who are fighting today about the same things which once happened to the Poles and the Czechs? Finally, how many positive signals of this kind about membership of the European Union have been sent to the Ukrainians from the German Government, for example?
Seán Kelly
Mr President, the road to democracy is often a slow and tortuous one. Some countries move quicker than others and we see that with the countries of the former Soviet Union, who are now our valid colleagues here in the European Parliament.
Others countries move somewhat slower - maybe Ukraine is an example of that. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that it has made progress but must go further. In particular, to establish true democracy, it needs, first of all, to promote civil society, secondly, end state control, particularly over NGOs, thirdly, have a truly independent judiciary, and fourthly, have a free and strong opposition.
You cannot have proper democracy without having a free, strong and vibrant opposition. We in the European Union must use every means to encourage Ukraine to go the full circle and establish true democracy. It has made progress, but it needs to go a bit further.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, the charges that have been brought against Tymoshenko are, as she herself has said, purely political in nature. We also have to remind ourselves that several other former members of her Cabinet are also accused or suspected of corruption.
As I believe Mrs Ojuland mentioned here earlier, we are not a court. We are not here to decide whether these people are guilty or innocent. Instead, we want to remind everyone of how important it is that these hearings cannot be selective in any sense and that the legal proceedings must be open and must be non-discriminatory.
May I say that I wish to thank Lady Ashton for expressing her concern back in May regarding the charges brought against the Ukrainian opposition leaders, and their possible political ends. We have to continue along this path and ensure that these hearings in Ukraine do not actually become selective or anti-opposition in nature.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris
(IT) Mr President, Ukraine is a democracy, a friendly country, a partner of this European Union. However, Ukraine must adopt European standards also in the administration of judicial power, which is characterised by politicised trials in which the accused do not enjoy all the rights and means necessary to face a trial that, in some cases, is a purely political trial. This represents a criminalisation of political opponents of the government in office, aimed solely at eliminating and silencing the opposition. Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister, and her ministers are being attacked by means of show trials, rather than by a political confrontation which, although heated, would be serious and transparent. The Ukrainian Government must respect the opposition, without brandishing the weapon of judicial power, and respect the rules of a democratic state and human rights, as subscribed to in the Eastern Partnership agreements.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
(FI) Mr President, the former Ukrainian Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, has had to answer several corruption charges this spring, and a ban on travel in February prevented her from coming to meet us in Brussels. If Tymoshenko is eventually found guilty, she faces a sentence of up to ten years in prison.
The background and context, however, beg awkward questions and arouse concern regarding the partly politically motivated nature of the charges. Our resolution rightfully raises the issue of the charges against the leaders of the political opposition, charges that look ever more selective in nature, and insists on a guarantee of the transparency of the investigations and of the judicial process.
The fight against corruption and the affirmation of the rule of law are not just preconditions for deepening EU-Ukraine relations: they are also crucial for reinforcing Ukraine's democratic development. Ukraine's new political leaders must also show a sense of responsibility and start implementing the reforms that have remained half-finished since the Orange Revolution.
Iosif Matula
(RO) Mr President, the motion for a resolution relating to the case of the members of the former Ukrainian Government is needed to ensure respect for the basic principles of the European Union, starting with respect for human rights. It is not Ukraine's justice system which is the biggest concern, but the possible interference of politics in the administration of justice. The European Union, as a community of law and values, must support the members of the former Ukrainian Government to ensure respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
I would like to highlight the need to continue and step up the reforms being carried out in Ukraine and to align its legislation with the EU's provisions and obligations as key elements aimed at bringing it closer to the European Union. The success of the reform process taken on by Ukraine will depend on the promotion of, and respect for, democratic principles, the rule of law and transparency. With regard to the charges made against Yulia Tymoshenko and the members of the former government, an abuse of power cannot be used to take action against an accusation of an abuse of power. Democracy must make progress in Ukraine and we can support this process.
Günther Oettinger
Member of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission is following developments in Ukraine with regard to the former members of the government of Ukraine, Mrs Tymoshenko, Mr Lutsenko and others very closely, as Parliament and the parliamentary groups are also doing. Since the beginning of the year, we have been making clear our concerns about the possible political motivation that lies behind these cases. The EU has a delegation in the country and is monitoring developments carefully.
The progress report on Ukraine which we published a few days ago gives a comprehensive picture of the situation in the country last year. Our evaluation of the situation, which has not changed, shows the need for comprehensive reform of the justice system and for measures to combat corruption. The report emphasises that respect for the rule of law in criminal investigations and criminal prosecutions and fair, impartial and independent court proceedings must be guaranteed, in order to ensure that criminal law is not abused for political purposes.
In cases involving former members of the government, a clear distinction must be made between criminal and political responsibility. The concerns about the excessive use of detention and custody measures and of travel restrictions also give the impression of an arbitrary approach to justice.
At the same time, a large part of Ukrainian civil society, experts throughout the world and foreign businesspeople working in Ukraine are firmly convinced that the courts in Ukraine are being subjected to strong pressure from different sides. We are hoping that future amendments to the law on the reform of the judicial system will take into consideration the statement by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and sweep away these concerns.
I would like to emphasise that we attach great importance to safeguarding the rule of law in Ukraine, which is a country that we want to enter into a closer contractual relationship with on the basis of association and economic integration. A smoothly functioning, independent and transparent justice system is essential in order for this to happen.
We do not want to take sides in any individual cases, but we expect Ukraine to bring about fundamental changes in its system in order to guarantee impartial, fair and transparent court proceedings. We are convinced that the stability of Ukraine and the confidence of its citizens in the country's public bodies will depend on the progress made in this area.
The speed and the scope of our integration with Ukraine, and vice versa, will depend on whether Ukraine can fully guarantee its respect for human rights, the principles of democracy and the principles of the rule of law. These principles must not be called into question in any way. This conclusion is in line with the results of the review of the European neighbourhood policy.
The meeting of the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Council which is taking place in the course of the next few weeks will give us the opportunity to discuss numerous issues that are important for our relationship and to send clear signals to Ukraine which are the same as those that you are sending about the importance of reform in this area.
We are pleased about Ukraine's determination to conclude the negotiations on an association agreement before the end of this year. So far, so good. However, Ukraine must implement the necessary far-reaching reforms, in particular, of the judicial system, the electoral system and the constitution, in order to be able to enjoy the opportunities which this agreement can offer with regard to association and economic integration with the EU. In addition, the country must make more decisive efforts to combat corruption.
Ukraine is not alone in this respect, but it must demonstrate its unconditional determination to introduce more comprehensive and more inclusive reforms if it wants to move closer to the EU. We will continue to provide Ukraine with significant support in its efforts to bring about internal reforms.
Finally, I would like to say that we will make clear our absolute respect for proper court proceedings, without passing comment. We are relying on being able to continue our open and transparent dialogue in Kiev and in Brussels about internal reforms in Ukraine and about the country's closer integration with the EU, both with the Ukrainian authorities and with the opposition. Thank you very much.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Alexander Mirsky
, in writing. - I was surprised by the wish of some political forces in the European Parliament to support former leaders of Ukraine both morally and politically. It is known that the European People's Party has a cooperation agreement with the bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko. It would be interesting to know whether there is in the agreement a point on legal protection and provision of lawyer services?
Today's resolution looks more like an appeal but not like a European Parliament document. I consider it necessary to declare that nobody is eligible to interfere in judicial proceedings and prosecution activities. By evaluating the work of the prosecutor in advance, before the end of the investigation, we prevent justice from being implemented.
The European Parliament is not a lawyer's office. In such cases, we should wait until the investigation comes to an end. We should recommend to the accused to cooperate with investigating bodies. We do not have any right to put pressure on the judicial system of Ukraine since it can be qualified as interference in internal affairs.
I am categorically against resolution P7_TA-PROV(2011)0272 because I consider it to be putting rough pressure on the government of Ukraine.
Bogusław Sonik
The priorities of the Ukrainian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe are, inter alia, to prevent violations of human rights and to uphold the principles of the rule of law. Ukraine has also undertaken to build democracy at local level and to strengthen local self-government. At the same time, the Helsinki Committee is warning that Ukraine is breaching the European Convention on Human Rights. The preventative detentions and the ban on leaving the country which has been imposed on the most important members of the opposition and former members of the government cast doubt on the objectivity of the Ukrainian prosecution service. In the opinion of the European Parliament, there is a lack of transparency in the investigation, and the procedural methods adopted are out of proportion. The European Parliament should ask the Ukrainian Prosecutor General to lift this ban.
The real problem, however, lies in the continued lack of democratic reform in Ukraine. During the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe in March 2011, the Ukrainian representatives explained that more time is needed to shake off the Communist past. I think, too, that achieving democracy is not easy, but requires the will to introduce change and take forceful steps. Enough time has already passed since the fall of the USSR, and other post-Communist countries have made significant progress. To create a pluralistic system of the rule of law, Ukraine must start by efficiently making changes to its electoral law and criminal legislation. The European Union must, however, insist that the demands it is making are met, chiefly because it is itself offering a great deal in the Eastern Partnership and Neighbourhood Policy.


13. Prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (
Sharon Bowles
on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - Madam President, on behalf of the committee, I would like to request the adjournment of the final vote, under Rule 57(2).
As you know, this was the view of the committee expressed on Tuesday, and we think that we can now proceed to have further discussions with the Council with a view to achieving a satisfactory outcome.
I therefore ask for the adjournment in order that we can conclude this or leave the door open to concluding it, with a first-reading agreement in July.
Martin Schulz
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (DE) Madam President, we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament already voted against this amendment at the committee stage. We believed that this report was ready to be put to a vote now, and the overwhelming approval for this report would seem to prove us right. We are familiar with the arguments put forward as to why we should re-enter negotiations with the Council, which is why I would like to state my position on the motions for a postponement that will follow the other parts of this package. We can see this as an indication that the German and French governments need to move once again on two significant points. However, we know from the Council that this is not going to happen. That is why one question is of decisive importance for us: what do the groups who support this motion plan to do if the Council fails to make any changes that reflect our decisions? Will they vote in favour or against the packages? This is an important issue for us.
Corien Wortmann-Kool
Madam President, I would like to underline what Mrs Bowles has said: we are hoping to find a final agreement on the report before our plenary session in July.
Right from the beginning, we have taken the position as a Parliament - including the Socialist Group - that we treat this as a package. So let us treat this as a package and now support Mrs Bowles' proposal to postpone the vote to July.


17. Interim Trade Agreement with Turkmenistan (vote)
- Before the vote:
Daniel Caspary
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I request a postponement until the April-II plenary session pursuant to Article 170 paragraph 4. Yesterday, during the group meetings, we received documents from the Commission and the Council in which the Commission and the Council are approaching our position. We did not have time to discuss these documents adequately, however. I would therefore be grateful for a postponement.
However, I would again ask all Members from all groups to please refrain from using this interim agreement with Turkmenistan as a hostage by means of which to gain greater rights for Parliament in comparison with the Council and the Commission. It would be a great shame if this document had to suffer from this problem.
Stavros Dimas
Member of the Commission. - We do not object to the postponement.
(Parliament decided to postpone the vote)


Public contracts in the fields of defence and security (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Lambsdorff, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts in the fields of defence and security - C6-0467/2007 -.
Alexander Graf Lambsdorff
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, worldwide there are currently 13 EU missions through which we are helping to bring peace and stability. Nine missions have already ended. In many of these operations, armed forces, often including police officers, from our Member States enter difficult environments. At the same time, we all know that there are still many more trouble spots and that demand for European intervention in international politics is more likely to increase than decrease, and, unfortunately, we also know that we Europeans are often not in a position to carry out our missions in the way that we really ought to, with optimum equipment and in an interoperable and strategically redeployable manner. We must achieve this, as we owe this to our soldiers and police officers involved in operations throughout the world. This goal is a long way off, however.
One of the reasons for this is our fragmented defence equipment market. Our 27 Member States indulge in 89 different, sometimes even duplicated, research programmes. The US has only 29. There is far too little cooperation between the Member States in connection with product development. So-called traditional suppliers are preferred over non-traditional, but perhaps better suppliers and that is what we want to change.
Goods and services to the value of around EUR 91 billion are acquired each year on the European defence equipment market. Of this, only 13% is, on average, put out to tender Europe-wide. The sorry country bringing up the rear in this case, I might add, is Germany with only around 2%. The bottom line is that the internal market for defence-related products is not working. Many important innovations in this high-tech industry cannot be utilised, our armed forces do not get the best equipment and taxpayers' money is wasted. As a result, highly developed defence-related products are becoming increasingly expensive, while the defence budget remains the same or is even getting smaller. In this situation, it is clear what it is all about. It is not about greater arms expenditure, but about spending the existing money more wisely. That is what we need to do. We owe it to our taxpayers.
Therefore, in a report in 2005 this Parliament called on the Commission to submit a directive for this sector. It has done so, in agreement with both Parliament and the Council. It was important for us, and also for me as rapporteur, that President Sarkozy expressly mentioned the European defence equipment market in his speech about the priorities of the French Presidency. With that it was clear that Parliament, the Council and the Commission would work together on this in a united effort. The agreement at first reading is a result of this common political will. Tomorrow, we will - hopefully together - lay the foundation for a new European legal framework, which will ensure a genuine opening of the market and greater transparency and competition with regard to procurement.
We must also view this directive in context. In December, we successfully adopted the Directive on the transfer of defence-related products within the Community. The directive before us today is the second important building block in the European defence equipment package. Although the two directives function independently in theory, in practice they need one another. This is another reason why the completion tomorrow of our work on the defence equipment package is so important. It will not bring a revolution in the market overnight, that is clear, but it is an important step in the right direction and it is able to move European security and defence policy substantially further forward.
I would like to offer my sincere thanks to my colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs Charlotte Cederschiöld, Barbara Weiler and Gisela Kallenbach for their ever fair, sometimes critical, but always constructive cooperation. I would also like to thank the Council and the Commission. Everyone involved showed a wonderful mixture of political will, professionalism and a willingness to compromise.
We all owe it to our citizens to make constructive policy for Europe together. I hope that we will fulfil this obligation tomorrow for our sphere of competence with the adoption of this package. Incidentally, we should be having this debate in Brussels and not in Strasbourg. Thank you.
Charlie McCreevy
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me first of all apologise for the weakness of my voice, as I have a very heavy cold.
You are about to vote on the proposal for a directive on the procurement of defence and security equipment, which the Commission tabled in December 2007 as part of the so-called 'defence package'. This proposal is a major step forward towards the establishment of a common European defence market, which, by itself, is an important contribution to the Union's security and defence policy. In other words, this directive is a politically highly important instrument which will help to strengthen Europe's defence capabilities, make public spending more efficient and enhance the security of our citizens.
The negotiation process for the proposal has benefited from the close cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Therefore, I would like to warmly thank the rapporteur, Mr Lambsdorff, for his intensive and efficient work to achieve an agreement with the Council in first reading. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive cooperation. I also want to congratulate the French presidency, together with the Slovenian presidency, for the way they successfully spurred the negotiations in Council. And last but not least, I would like to thank the Czech presidency for its commitment in finalising this file.
The Commission welcomes the text that we have now on the table. The new directive is tailor-made for defence and security procurement. It will give contracting authorities the flexibility they need to negotiate contracts which are often particularly complex and sensitive. It will also allow them to ask for specific security clauses to protect classified information and ensure their security of supply. All this makes the directive an instrument which Member States can apply to most of their defence procurement without putting at risk their security interests.
The new directive will also apply to sensitive procurements in the field of non-military security. This approach is in line with today's strategic environment, in which transnational threats and new technologies have blurred the dividing line between military and non-military, internal and external security. Public procurement cannot ignore these developments: in cases where equipment for police forces, for example, has features similar to those of defence equipment, it is only logical to make the same procurement rules applicable.
All this will have major advantages: the new directive will make it possible for Member States to limit the use of the derogation under Article 296 of the EC Treaty to exceptional cases. Hence, the principles of the internal market will, at last, apply to important parts of defence and security markets in Europe. Fair and transparent procurement rules will become applicable throughout the Union and allow companies to tender more easily in other Member States. European industries will get a much larger 'home' market with longer production runs and economies of scale. This, in turn, will reduce costs and lead to lower prices.
At the end, we will achieve greater openness of markets to the benefit of all: industries will become more competitive, armed forces will get better value for money, and taxpayers will benefit from more efficiency in public spending. All this is also the fruit of your work and your input. Let me therefore once again thank you and congratulate you on this.
Charlotte Cederschiöld
Mr President, a European market in defence-related products is not created overnight, but the rapporteur has built up confident cooperation that has helped us, together with the Council, and in particular the Commission, to take a first, very important step. Now defence-related products will be clearly incorporated within the ground rules of the internal market, which should help to lower prices. Along with a more open market come increased European competitiveness and more efficient equipment production.
The French Government also deserves praise for its constructive role, but the rapporteur, Mr Lambsdorff, has, of course, been the most important contributor. I would also like to thank the defence industry for its valuable contribution, which has increased flexibility. Many elements from the 2004 Procurement Directive have been retained here. At the same time, respect is shown for national security interests and special conditions for supply and the protection of information, for example. Application of Article 296 is retained as per the current legislation, but misuse is prevented. This should also be welcomed by the industry, which will, of course, continue to be able to influence the implementation of the directive as well as the development of new practices.
We in Parliament are pleased that the Council has met us halfway with regard to the threshold values and transparency, to name just a couple of examples of the many successes of the European Parliament, the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the rapporteur. I, personally, am pleased that it has been possible to resolve the most controversial issues with regard to existing EC law. If Parliament, as I hope and believe, widely supports this report, then an important and logical step forward will have been taken.
My sincere thanks go to all my fellow Members and other stakeholders who have helped to make this a constructive and exciting process.
Barbara Weiler
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of last year there were some remarkable headlines proclaiming 'the world is rearming', 'trade in weapons is booming', 'defence equipment industry - expensive through lack of competition' and other cases of corruption in Germany as well as in other countries of the European Union. We Social Democrats are absolutely clear in our opposition to this kind of arms race, this increase in weaponry, and also the laissez-faire attitude towards corruption. We are in agreement with our national colleagues on this issue.
The aims of this legislative package, with these two directives on transfer and procurement that we are discussing here today, will ensure that it is not just a matter of competitiveness, but also of putting a stop to the wasting of taxpayers' money on the production of defence equipment and of preventing corruption. These are good enough reasons alone for the Social Democrats to accept the result.
There will be a European legal framework for awarding contracts for goods and services in the area of defence and security, there will be more cooperation between the Member States, in other words no unnecessary overlaps and no deceiving of Member States by the arms companies, and there will be more competition overall and fewer exceptions under Article 296.
For us Members - for all groups, I believe - it was important for us to have introduced the Remedies Directive, in other words the directive prepared by Mr Fruteau. For the Council, it was not at all so clear cut. For us it was important for there to be sanctions in the event of corruption, even down to exclusion from contracts. I think that is something new for this industry, which has been spoilt up to now.
However, it was also important to us that the results be viable for all 27 Member States. Even if only six or seven Member States have their own production and a few less get involved in trade, it is important to have 27 States behind us. We have succeeded in that. I am not sure whether everything will work the way we imagine it will and therefore we have incorporated the fact that Parliament wishes to continue to have a certain amount of control. We want to be informed, not just automatically by the Commission, but we want to be informed of the results and about the transposition of this package of directives.
In future, when we will have an even stronger European internal market and will gain European powers, as Mr Sarkozy has of course planned, then the European Parliament as an elected institution in Europe must be involved in genuine control, a control that we have in the national parliaments, but do not yet have in the European Parliament. This, however, is a task for the future. In Germany, for example, we have got our fingers burnt with the production of defence equipment and increased prices. We have the Eurofighter - an excessively expensive, if not the most expensive, project - and I am sure that every Member State has similar experiences.
Finally, I do not wish to express my thanks. The cooperation was quite constructive and the results are, above all, significant. However, I would like to say quite openly that the parliamentary procedure was intolerable. Reaching compromises with the Council and the Commission at first reading simply should not be the work of this House. For this reason, this procedure must only be an absolute exception in future. It was not, in fact, necessary for this legislative package. We should stick to our guns and, immediately after the vote, do away with this type of procedure for non-parliamentary work.
Cristian Silviu Buşoi
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating my colleague, Mr Lambsdorff, on his excellent report. I know he dedicated himself to this very important work. I consider it vital to create a common arms market and to establish a legal framework for this in order to further develop the European security and defence policy (ESDP).
I also welcome the important achievement that the principles of the Treaty, in particular transparency, non-discrimination and openness, will also be implemented in the defence and security market and, as has already been said, this will result in an improvement of the efficiency of defence spending.
The Commission's proposal, as well as Mr Lambsdorff's report, managed to establish a set of rules concerning procurement contracts in the field of security and defence, which allow the proper functioning of the common arms market.
I want to refer to at least two major improvements for both suppliers and the contracting authorities which aim to protect the security of the EU and its Member States. I would mention here the provisions relating to the security of supply, namely information about tenderers and subcontractors provided to the contracting authorities and the commitments tenderers have to make to ensure security of supply. On the other hand, tenderers are also protected by the introduction of the review procedure, which guarantees the awarding process is fair and no discrimination occurs.
The proposal increases the transparency in the work procedure, but Member States should not at all be reluctant to it as their security interests are safeguarded, especially by maintaining the derogations from the disclosure of information when security interests are at stake.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise the fact that it is very important for us to have a common European market for defence. At the same time, when we are discussing this issue - the common European defence market - or perhaps if we discuss more sensitive issues like offsets in the future, we should seriously take into consideration the strategic interests and the concrete situation of each and every Member State.
Mieczysław Edmund Janowski
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Lambsdorff has done an excellent job. Congratulations. The spending of public money has always stirred up strong feelings. This is especially true in the case of procurement for the army or defence forces. Large sums of money are involved and we need to select manufacturers and service-providers who provide the best service, rather than the cheapest solution. We need high quality at a reasonable price.
We also have to consider how thorough all the work will be and the quality of the materials used, as well as specific issues such as confidentiality, even secrecy, especially in relation to crucial issues. These matters are also linked to the issues of offsetting and ensuring a return on investment. I think that we will have to return to this subject. I believe that the position presented in the proposal for a directive is correct. In my opinion, the proposed solutions will increase the efficiency of the European public tender system in the field of defence. They deserve our acceptance.
Gisela Kallenbach
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his constructive cooperation, because for all the justified criticism of the procedure at first reading, this cooperation was in actual fact the prerequisite for the voice of Parliament clearly being heard in the trialogue.
We are deciding today on a compromise with regard to an object of trade, the previous market for which was limited to just a few Member States. It has been a really interesting experience for me just to see fundamental advocates of the internal market and competition suddenly pulling out all the stops to continue to be able to utilise national decision-making and isolation mechanisms. They did not succeed and that is a good thing.
Why was that? It was because more competition in the trade in defence equipment will hopefully in future result in a move away from the dictation of prices and in the chance that the public money designated for this purpose will be reduced and used more efficiently. The same goes for reducing corruption. We owe this to our citizens. It is also clear that unambiguous tendering conditions will now apply, which will lead to greater transparency in connection with the awarding of contracts and will at last also give SMEs a real chance of entering the market. Moreover, all conceivable loopholes for avoiding the tendering process have also been reduced, and any envisaged deviations must be agreed in advance with the Commission. The bartering which up to now has indeed been prohibited under law but has nevertheless been common practice has not been legalised by this directive. Last but not least, legal remedy can now be utilised for the first time.
I had hoped that we would Europeanise it further, reduce the threshold values and so gain greater transparency, but this is a major step in the right direction and I am looking forward to its transposition.
Tobias Pflüger
Mr President, this directive is part of the defence package, the context of which is, and I quote, 'the strategy for a stronger and more competitive European defence industry'. The principal guideline, as with so many things, is the free market for defence-related products too, in other words weapons, and weapons are for killing and waging war. The aim of the directive is to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the arms industry in the EU. Mr Swoboda spoke plainly in the previous debate. He said that we need better initial conditions for the European arms industry in view of the competition, in particular from the United States.
In 2005, the EU Member States jointly became for the first time the top arms exporter in the world. Of these exports, 70% come from the four large nations of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy. The main importer states are those of the Middle East. Our concern should not be for a more efficient arms industry, but rather for disarmament, and unlike the efficiency of the arms industry, for this there is no directive. It is very clear what this is really all about.
Andreas Schwab
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, but also to the Subcommittee on Security and Defence and its chairman and draftsman of the opinion on the Lambsdorff report, my friend Karl von Wogau.
We are not talking here about the export of weapons to states outside the European internal market, only about the issue of how the sale and trade in weapons within the European internal market, that is in the 27 Member States of the European Union, can be made more cost-effective and more efficient. I very much welcome the fact that Parliament has taken up a common position here, because, as a result, citizens will ultimately make considerable savings in a market of around EUR 70 billion per year, and therefore can in some way be paid a peace dividend.
This work and - it is a little disappointing that so few representatives of the Council are here today - this decision are extremely welcome in the light of an extremely difficult discussion between the Member States in the past. As much as I agree with the opinion about the difficulties experienced in the trialogue, as expressed by the Social Democrats, I have to say that one day we will achieve a milestone in European defence policy with this. I am even more disappointed that so few fellow Members wish to be present for this decision.
This morning we celebrated 10 years of the euro. I hope that in a few years we will also look back on today, as this is a milestone in European cooperation between Member States in the area of defence and of foreign and security policy, because in future it will, in principle, be the case that whatever requirements we set in our own Member State, the same will also apply automatically in all the other Member States. This involves a large credit of trust that the Member States have now become willing to give. For this I am particularly grateful.
However, I would also like to thank the Commission, which has worked with much vigour on this directive, which has overcome the opposition in the Member States and which has tried constructively to help Parliament to find a way through the tangled undergrowth of public procurement law. The positive points have already been mentioned, including the improvements that will be made to procurement law and I do not wish to repeat these.
With the second part of the package for creating this genuine European internal market for defence-related products we have indeed come another important mile along the road. This also strengthens the autonomous ability of the European Union to respond to international crises, work to which Mr von Wogau has devoted himself in particular in the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. If then, as recently described, an autonomous operation of the European Union in Africa under the leadership of an Irish General with a Polish deputy and troops comprising members from 15 different Member States is possible, then it shows how far the European Union has come in building a Europe of Defence. We need to go further along this road. Thank you very much.
Joel Hasse Ferreira
(PT) Mr President, firstly I would like to acknowledge the rapporteur, Mr Lambsdorff, and the shadow rapporteurs, particularly Mrs Weiler.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it to be essential that we move towards integration of national defence markets and even strategic coordination of their production. We must move forward, with all the necessary specificities and precautions, towards applying the basic rules of the internal market to the defence industries, increasing transparency in the tendering processes that are organised and the contracts that are awarded involving Member States of the European Union. However, at the same time we must help to create the conditions that will make European equipment and products more competitive in world markets.
It seems important to me, Commissioner McCreevy, that this directive be able to guarantee improvements in the legal framework for public contracts in the fields of defence and security. It must further the construction of the internal market while, obviously, respecting the rights and interests of Member States, especially in the field of security; I refer specifically to those that manufacture arms, munitions and defence and security equipment, such as my own country, for example.
I would also, Mr President, highlight the provisions that allow easier access to this market for small and medium-sized enterprises, specifically by improving the rules for subcontracting. I also emphasise the prospect of making a greater and more profound impact on the industrial fabric, in order to create a true European market in the defence industries. That may also contribute to strengthening research and development, not just within these industries, but also in a section of European industry that feeds off their development.
In conclusion, I believe reference could be made to the obvious link between the defence industries and the foreign policies of the Union. However, in response to a recent speech, I would like to quote a classical Roman saying: 'if you want peace, prepare for war'. In the European Union, as it is almost a pacifist superpower, we call these industries 'defence industries' and not 'war industries' because we want peace, not war. That is also why we need defence industries.
Janusz Onyszkiewicz
(PL) Mr President, the United States spends around USD 500 billion on defence. The European Union spends a little over 200 billion on the same. However, the question is whether, in return for this 200 billion, the military capabilities of the European Union Member States really reflect that investment, as is the case in the United States. When I was defence minister, I met industry representatives and told them that I was the minister responsible for national defence, and not industrial defence. I think that the sort of directive we are discussing today, and for which I would like to express my thanks and my gratitude to Mr Lambsdorff, will lead to the large sums that we spend on defence being used in a significantly more sensible and reasonable manner, and that the military capability of the European Union will reflect our level of spending on defence.
Angelika Beer
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out once again that we are talking about a package: the resolution in December and this debate today. Only when we view both together - the regulation on transfers of defence-related products within the Community and now the procurement directive - do they make sense.
I have prepared the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We had a core political objective, namely that with the harmonisation of the European arms industry and the liberalisation within the EU, tougher means of control with regard to the issue of exports outside the EU should at the same time be implemented. If we are going to mention the negative headlines, we should mention the good ones as well. At its last meeting at the end of last year, the Council, under the French Presidency, adopted the Code of Conduct as a legally binding instrument. That is a good thing and it is what this Parliament has always called for.
I would therefore like to point out once again that this harmonisation that we consider to be right - and not only the harmonisation, but also the development of a sanction mechanism that is to be used if this directive is contravened - is now also under the control of the nation states and the Members. We will follow this process, and not only the harmonisation, with great interest.
Jacques Toubon
(FR) Mr President, I would like to add my support to the line taken by Mr Schwab a few moments ago. I would say that adopting this directive today is a major decision and we owe it to the very remarkable efforts of our rapporteur, Mr Lambsdorff, our shadow rapporteur, Charlotte Cederschiöld, whom I thank and naturally, the French Presidency who, at the end of last year, made great efforts to achieve a compromise.
In fact, what we are doing today is to finish a cycle which has been remarkably fast, that is to say a few months, which includes both the directive on the internal market in defence products, adopted in December, the Code of Conduct for exports, which became law at the same time and, finally, this directive reconciling Article 296 of the Treaty with the common rules on public contracts. In fact, this whole set, so to speak, commits us to what I will call 'communitisation' of the defence economy. This might, of course, appear to be inimical to the desire for sovereignty or even to the very characteristics of defence policies. In fact, this translates a desire for integration of state sovereignties.
The same thing will be noted in the field of justice. Throughout the French Presidency and since the Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies, enormous progress has been made in yet another field in which national sovereignties wished to block any agreement or cooperation.
In fact, ladies and gentlemen, by adopting such a text, I believe we are helping to bring an end to the ideological debate on the nature and form of the European project. It is an area and a power, and it will be increasingly recognised in the fields of defence and foreign policy.
Geoffrey Van Orden
Mr President, as British Conservatives, we are generally strong protagonists of open markets, but, as a number of speakers have confirmed, the underlying thrust of this report is strengthening ESDP and EU integration rather than any real economic benefits. It certainly has nothing to do with strengthening defence capabilities.
I can see that there could be some marginal benefits in easier UK access to some other European countries' markets in defence-related procurement. But there is a far greater advantage for others to access the UK market, which has the largest defence spend - and, by the way, the UK already has the most open defence procurement market in Europe.
Of particular concern is that, under the proposed rules, a government or firm that has made huge investment in some aspect of defence R&D may no longer be in a position to recoup this investment in the development and production phase. Development contracts are expected to be opened up to European competition, leaving a national government with no means of protecting intellectual property, jobs or export opportunities. It will be a brake on R&D.
There are other concerns as well, but I have to say that this report is not really necessary from a defence, industrial or, indeed, economic point of view.
Ioan Mircea Paşcu
Mr President, the directive on defence procurement is an important step towards both the EDEM and the ESDP. I recognise the difficulties of reconciling free market principles with inevitable discretion on defence deals, and common rules covering the award of public contracts with individual practices regarding defence contracts.
This very complex set of regulations has, of course, to pass the test of practice, because trying to fit in the same box adverse elements like transparency and secrecy, and commonality and individuality, will require constant monitoring and the determination to penalise any individual attempt to favour one over the other in a continuous effort to keep a fine balance between all four.
Proper functioning will then be both a function and a reflection of the determination of the EU bodies to referee this nascent European market, and of the true willingness of national defence champions and the Member States behind them to respect and play the game according to these new rules.
One word on offsetting. For countries like mine, Romania, offset is, at least for the time being, an important mechanism to ensure the survival of our national industry.
Marian-Jean Marinescu
(RO) European unity and security have again been put in jeopardy at the moment by both the financial and economic crisis and the energy crisis. This has shown once again that only unity and solidarity enable us to successfully tackle the major problems in the modern world.
The introduction of common, transparent rules governing procurement in the market for security and defence-related products is an important step in tightening European security policy. It is also a mechanism specific to the market economy enabling European industry to compete successfully with major global players, especially in the United States.
A sound Community scheme needs to be set up as soon as possible for handling information security, while an adequate control system needs to be put in place for exports of security and defence-related products and equipment to third countries. The ratification and enforcement of the Lisbon Treaty will allow well-structured cooperation to be established on a permanent basis in the area of security policy, which is essential to the EU's future.
Bogusław Rogalski
(PL) Since the 1990s it has been clear that the fragmentation of the European defence markets has had negative economic repercussions. During the past 20 years, defence spending has been cut, leading to lower turnover and employment levels, as well as cuts in investment in the field of research and new military technologies.
Today, even the large Member States have trouble funding new defence systems. A European defence technological and industrial base should be created in order to develop the Member States' fundamental defence capabilities. This step is vital, in order to meet global challenges in the field of defence.
It is also important to have a harmonised European legislative framework, which would allow the Member States to implement Community provisions without threatening their own defence interests. We should not forget an important element, namely the introduction of a control procedure. It should aim to guarantee tenderers effective legal protection, foster transparency and prevent discrimination during the procurement process.
Emmanouil Angelakas
(EL) Mr President, I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lambsdorff, and the shadow rapporteurs on the important work they have done.
The main feature of the European market is the fragmentation that prevails at national level. Exports of products relating to the defence and security sector in question are subject to national licensing systems which differ in terms of procedure, scope and deadlines.
This new legislation promotes transparency and lays the foundations for creating a single open European market in defence equipment, which is also a basic factor in strengthening European security and defence policy.
It is also important that there are fundamental provisions governing the security of supply and information. The citation of Article 296 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities has also been clarified, but is now confined to actual derogations, as provided for in the Treaty and as requested by the European Court of Justice.
To close, I should like to point out that it is important that there are flexible arrangements which strengthen the role of small and medium-sized enterprises which, in some Member States, form a sector that employs thousands of workers.
Nickolay Mladenov
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mr Lambsdorff for the excellent work he has done and of course his shadows, particularly, Mrs Cederschiöld, but let me also underline something that Mr Toubon said: the fantastic work done by the French presidency in achieving agreement on this directive.
I hope that when we return to it in a few years' time we will realise that we should not have been afraid to talk about a European defence equipment market because of a common European market. It is in the common defence interest of Europe and it is in the common interest of Europe to have more competition.
Let me highlight one part of this directive which is highly important for many Member States. This is particularly the text concerning subcontracting. I am very happy that the agreements reached with the Council and the Commission on the text concerning subcontracting have reflected to a large extent what Parliament has been pushing for, namely that there is more transparency in terms of subcontracting; secondly, that there is no discrimination on a national basis when subcontracts are being drafted and finally that national authorities have the ability to allow contractors to subcontract up to 30% of their contracts.
This is in the interests of bringing our industry together across Europe.
Charlie McCreevy
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank all the participants in the debate. It is clear that the present text is a compromise and as such cannot take on board all the suggestions made with the attention of improving it. At the same time, however, Parliament has many reasons to be satisfied.
Firstly, it was Parliament that asked the Commission in its resolution of 17 November 2005 in the Green Paper on defence procurement to prepare this directive. Hence, it is to a large extent Parliament's proposal.
Secondly, and even more importantly, the current text has benefited enormously from your input during the process. A huge number of amendments from the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection report have been integrated, in particular with regard to the scope, the provisions on remedies, and transparency.
The Commission can accept all these amendments and therefore supports the text. We are convinced that this directive will make a difference and contribute to a real European defence market. Let us face it, only five years ago, the idea of building this market with Community instruments was pure science fiction to most people, but today it is about to become a reality. We should not miss this opportunity.
Alexander Graf Lambsdorff
Madam President, I would urge my fellow Member Mr van Orden to consider the fact that the only person here who supports him is the German far-left extremist. To Mr Pflüger from the left, I would say that a glance at the law will facilitate its understanding. It is not about exports at all, it is about the European internal market.
Otherwise, what Mrs Weiler said is correct. She said that these products are expensive through lack of competition. Yes, when there is no competition, they are expensive. We will hopefully introduce more competition into the European internal market. This will certainly not make these products cheap, but perhaps more reasonably priced at least. This is a big opportunity, an opportunity for the industry to open up new markets and an opportunity for medium-sized companies to penetrate these markets, too. However - and this is quite important - it is also an opportunity for transparency and thus for civil society, which will be able to keep a better eye on the way this market is structured and on what is happening, and for many non-governmental organisations.
I would like to expressly thank Mr Mladenov and Mr Toubon for their reference to the unusual work involved in this project. In essence, it is a project under the second pillar, that is the strengthening of the European security and defence policy, using an instrument of the first pillar, namely an internal market directive. Without the splendid work of the French Presidency mediating between the Member States - an extremely difficult task - it would never have succeeded.
We must expand these opportunities. It will be an opportunity for the political Europe. It will be an opportunity for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and an opportunity for the Europe of values and of peace. This is an opportunity that we must take advantage of.
Tobias Pflüger
(DE) Madam President, I would like to make a request under Rule 145 of the Rules of Procedure. If you are addressed in person, you have the opportunity to respond briefly.
It will become clear relatively quickly who the extremists are here, if you take a look at what all this is about. It is about market extremism, which is evident in this area. I said that a more efficient defence industry within the European Union would naturally have an impact on arms exports. No one can deny that this is the case. To suggest anything else would indicate a total fixation on the European Union.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Bogdan Golik
I would like to highlight the importance of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts in the fields of defence and security, which I strongly support.
The directive opens the way for basing public procurement in the field of security and defence on transparent criteria, without discriminating against tenderers from other EU Member States, whilst simultaneously guaranteeing the security of these countries. That is why it is so important to be able to invoke the clause in the Treaty establishing the European Community which provides that its provisions may be disregarded if that step is necessary to protect the essential interests of an EU Member State.
Joint production, joint purchasing, public procurement -especially in terms of the most technologically advanced, and therefore more expensive, equipment - will give the European Security and Defence Policy a better chance of success. The proposal for a directive, which I support, is a positive step towards opening up the markets of the EU Member States and reducing rivalry in the sector between countries which could make use of shared and cost-effective solutions.
At the same time, I would like to express my reservations regarding the order of preference of standards examined during the process of drawing up technical specifications for the purchase of defence equipment. Defence ministers should be responsible for establishing implementation priorities.
Moreover, I also noted the lack of any reference in this proposal to the Code of Best Practice in the Supply Chain of the European Defence Agency, which is implemented by suppliers. It is therefore not clear whether this criterion should continue to be taken into account when selecting suppliers.
Dushana Zdravkova
It is my firm view that defence and security are of paramount importance to each Member State, but they are above all areas in the interest of every citizen in the European Union, as well as of the European defence industry.
It goes without saying that the option of derogating from this directive will continue to apply. For this reason, it is vitally important that Member States are urged to improve their legislation governing public procurement in the area of national security. They should also use the opportunity provided by Article 296 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, solely on the condition that they have guaranteed a similar level of transparency, accountability, focus on results and efficiency, including an adequate mechanism for settling disputes which have arisen.
I would like to state that a directive, no matter how comprehensive and specific it is, cannot replace the need for the EU's defence industry and, more generally, its security industry to have a clear vision. The lack of any vision and strategy cannot be compensated for by rules and exceptions which will make countries 'cheat' to protect their private interests, wholesale or retail, according to the size of their defence industry. For this reason, a strategy must be devised in this area, which will be in the interest of upholding European principles.