Adaptation of a number of instruments to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, "omnibus" Regulation, Part Two - Alignment of legal acts to the new Comitology Decision (Legislative initiative) (short presentation)
President
The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:
by József Szájer, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC, with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny - Part Two - C6-0476/2007 -, and
by József Szájer, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, with recommendations to the Commission on the alignment of legal acts to the new Comitology Decision.
József Szájer
rapporteur. - (HU) It has long been humanity's experience that a decision-making authority, and particularly the authorities in implementation situations, cannot go without parliamentary monitoring. Today, especially in connection with the preparation of the Treaty of Lisbon, we have very often heard about the European Union's so-called democratic deficit, and we have also heard a huge amount about bureaucracy in Brussels.
Interestingly, the Treaty of Lisbon is not supported today by precisely those whose interests would best be served by all this change, and by those who remain to be convinced that the Treaty of Lisbon ensures precisely more effective monitoring of the implementing authority, the European Commission, and so-called European bureaucracy. I want this to be considered by all those who think there is no need for the Treaty of Lisbon.
I am convinced that, by safeguarding broader powers for the European Parliament, which is elected directly by the citizens, over the European Commission, we will serve this goal. Particularly when Parliament and the Council, or the legislative authority, delegate more and more powers to the implementing authority in Europe, it entrusts the European Commission in more and more respects with laying down the detailed rules.
Since, in a huge number of cases, we need to react immediately when the complicated European legislative mechanism does not work, when the Council and Parliament cannot meet, and in this case there is no other alternative than to authorise the Commission in such matters in the interests of rapid, effective action.
This still happens. These two reports concern the fact that, within the framework of the agreement concluded in 2006 by the European Parliament and the Commission, the European Parliament's sphere of influence and powers will extend to monitoring the actions of the Commission within the spheres of implementation and legislation. Up to now, only one legislature, the Council, had this opportunity.
The European Commission has produced four packages, of which we adopted two during our summer session. The third is coming now, and my own initiative report is about the principles through which this process must be implemented and how this monitoring must be recorded.
At the same time, I would like to establish that the discussions gave rise to a good compromise, but I would like to clarify fully, on behalf of Parliament, that we do not consider this to be a precedent, either for the Committee procedures that are currently under way, or looking to the future.
These monitoring powers will be Parliament's due irrespective of the Treaty of Lisbon; in other words, the Treaty of Lisbon, which safeguards similar powers, has come a little further and we are already realising these powers within its framework.
This is a gigantic amount of work for Parliament, and Parliament must be guaranteed the necessary instruments for this; and for this very reason I have taken action with regard to the budget too, so that, by taking it away from the bureaucracy, we can safeguard for Parliament the opportunities that are necessary for completing this new task. In other words, Parliament must also prepare for completing this task, and I think that by taking this step the European Union will also become more democratic and more transparent. In other words, we will be taking a significant step towards having the implementing authority monitored by the legislative authority, and thus by sovereignty, within the European institutions. Thank you for your attention.
Ján Figeľ
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, on behalf of the Commission I welcome the two reports from Mr Szájer, and my thanks to the rapporteur for his work. Köszönöm szépen Jóska.
With the first-reading agreement reached on the so-called 'second omnibus', an additional set of legislative instruments will be brought in line to the revised comitology decision. This implies a stronger role for Parliament - for you - and closer democratic scrutiny. The Commission is really pleased to see that work has been advancing at quite a good rate and fair solutions have been reached between the three institutions - the Council, Parliament and the Commission.
With the second report, Parliament actually invited the Commission to present new proposals to adapt a further limited number of acts. I can assure you of the Commission's intention to examine thoroughly the recommendations made in your report. Once this assessment is completed, we will be able to decide how best to respond to Parliament's recommendations.
Finally, let me also express the hope that the examination by the Council and by Parliament of the next omnibus will also proceed rapidly and smoothly.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.


EUROPOL (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the proposal for a Council decision establishing the European Police Office (EUROPOL) - C6-0055/2007 -.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) I would first like to thank Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra for the report he prepared regarding the Council's decision in favour of establishing the European Police Bureau, Europol, on the basis of the proposal put forward by the Commission.
At this point in time, the Council is still debating the draft of said decision and, in these debates, the Presidency will refer to or take into consideration the above-mentioned report by the Member of Parliament. Especially in the area of personal data protection and democratic control, the Presidency will take into consideration or strive to take into consideration doubts expressed by the rapporteur.
The shaping, final shaping, of the Council's decision by June 2008 is one of the priority tasks of our Presidency. The aim of the decision, which will replace the Europol Convention, is primarily to improve the operative and administrative function of Europol, thereby enabling it to respond more rapidly and more effectively to new challenges.
I must emphasise that the German and Portuguese Presidencies have already achieved an important advance in this matter, on the basis of which sections one, two, three, six, seven and nine have been finally shaped. These are the sections on foundation and tasks, data processing systems, common information processing provisions, organisation, confidentiality matters and other provisions.
Therefore, the Presidency will from now on concentrate primarily on the remaining sections regarding relations with partners, security and data security, budgetary provisions, i.e. monitoring and evaluation, and transitional and final provisions.
In deliberations on the open sections, pursuant to the Council decisions of June last year, the Presidency will devote special considerations to finding appropriate solutions for the following issues: firstly the issues of removing immunity from Europol officials working for common investigation units; secondly the principle of rotation and the possibility for those employed by Europol and participating in common investigation units to receive instructions from the head of the unit; and thirdly the question of budgetary neutrality.
The expert groups have already started deliberations on the issues mentioned, and the Europol working group and the committee are also continuing deliberations according to article 36. The two key elements of all these deliberations will be the improvement of Europol's operational capacity and the consideration of the principle of budgetary neutrality.
The Presidency is aiming to reach an agreement on these questions as early as the first quarter of 2008. The Presidency will also closely follow the course of events relating to the implementation plan. This plan defines all the key points which should be resolved if the decision on Europol is to be enforced from 1 January 2010. The initial debates on all such implementation measures are scheduled to start in the first half of this year.
Franco Frattini
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Slovenian Presidency, whom I thank, has just said that the Commission's proposal, of December 2006, which aims to replace the Europol Convention with a Council decision, is one of their priorities, and that they hope to secure political agreement as soon as possible. Obviously I offer them my full support because I believe the operation and administrative functioning of Europol will be clearly improved by it and that, as the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers pointed out in June, the ability to operate effectively is a key aim of the reform of Europol.
I also thank most warmly the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera, for the quality of his report and I would highlight the quality of the amendments proposed on the basis of his proposal, which has, however, been subject since then to many modifications, mentioned by the Presidency, following discussions during the German and Portuguese Presidencies. The Commission is going to look at how these amendments can be taken into account.
Among the amendments, the Commission notes the proposal from Mr Díaz de Mera that Parliament's democratic scrutiny of Europol could operate by Europol being funded from the general budget of the European Union. I also support the idea of Community funding referred to in Amendment 6, which relates to Recital 5. I also support Europol having a Community footing, requested in Amendment 5. Generally speaking, I am very interested in the amendments tabled on the role of the data protection officer, such as Amendment 9, and those concerning data protection. There are many, but I would particularly like to mention Amendments 13, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24 and 25, and can agree with the objective.
On the role of Europol officials in the coordination of joint investigation teams, I would point out that this coordination role was not supported by the Council. It was discussed at length, and in view of legislation that now applies to joint investigation teams, the Member States can still, in the arrangements they make between participating Member States, set up a joint investigation team, and specify and limit the role of Europol officials. Therefore, on this point, we need to continue discussions to reach a good compromise. Consequently, at this stage, making a provision of this kind in the proposal for a decision on Europol would unfortunately not be sufficient to grant a wider investigation coordination role to Europol officials, legally and systematically - a role, ladies and gentlemen, that I would personally like, of course. I agree with Amendment 15, which proposes establishing a special relationship between the national unit and the competent national authorities.
These, then, are the comments I wanted to make on this report, and I thank the rapporteur once again. I hope that the vote by Parliament can take place this week, so we can all give Europol excellent prospects for the near future and the possibility of a new status very soon that will enable it to function better.
Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra
Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Vice-President of the Commission, I would also like to thank you for your words and for your support.
I would like to start by asking for a commitment from the Council to this House for the decision that we are debating to be reviewed by the European Parliament no more than six months after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
As an MEP I strongly defend the broadening of Parliament's powers, especially those which, in the foreseeable future, will give this House the essential capacity as joint legislator in such important matters as are those concerning the area of freedom, security and justice.
However, I also believe that Parliament cannot make its work dependent on the anticipated entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, or suspend it on this basis. Our work therefore needs to continue. We need to continue with the process that is underway and use it in two ways: to be more effective in the fight against crime and to decisively claim the powers of the European Parliament.
Crime is dynamic and is constantly changing, therefore Europol and the other EU instruments to protect the safety of its citizens need to adapt more quickly to the changing times. The Convention of July 1995 is obsolete, so it is crucial for the Europol Decision, with its numerous advances, to enter into force quickly in order to provide better protection for EU citizens.
Keeping the system of protocols for amending the Convention is an absolutely anachronistic process. The new proposal that I am putting forward for debate introduces substantial changes. Firstly, by means of a Council decision based on Article 34(2) of the EU Treaty, it puts forward a much more flexible instrument. Secondly, the proposal puts forward significant fundamental changes such as converting the Office into a European agency, which will mean giving its staff the status of EU officials and financing it from the Community budget, which is desirable.
Another significant change is the extension of the scope of Europol's power to cover non-organised crime. The independent Data Protection Officer is another important step forward in terms of monitoring and guarantees.
The work done by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has fulfilled two objectives. First amending the Council's proposal in order to give Europol a specific framework for the protection of personal data and, with this in mind, I would like to highlight the need for the Council to adopt the proposal for a framework decision on this as soon as possible. Secondly, giving Parliament greater control over Europol's activities; in order to do this, we have proposed creating of an ad hoc committee made up of members of this House and of national parliaments, involving the European Parliament in the process of appointing and dismissing the Director, as well as other measures aimed at ensuring budgetary control over the new agency and its programme of work.
I sincerely believe that the proposals adopted in our parliamentary committee improve the Council's original document, which otherwise makes a great deal of changes. This is why, President-in-Office of the Council, I ask for your support for our report.
I would like to finish with sincere thanks to my colleagues from all the political groups for their valuable contributions, and, in particular, I would like to mention the negotiating efforts of Mr Moraes, Mr Alvaro and Mr Fava, and the contributions of Mrs Buitenweg and Mr Catania.
Jutta Haug
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. - (DE) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the Committee on Budgets is positive about the Commission's proposal to lead Europol out of its interstate position and into communitisation. If Europol is therefore soon to be funded entirely from the European budget, Parliament's budgetary rights must also be protected by the structures. The Committee responsible has kindly adopted all our respective amendments.
I also hope that the list that Commissioner Frattini has just read out is not exclusive, because I noticed that a number of amendments were not included.
We have all, however, got it straight that part of the administration would again be financed by operational resources. We now call upon the Council to sit down at the table with us immediately and come to a mutual agreement on the financing of Europol, because one thing is certain: everything we decide tomorrow applies only under the proviso of the result of the Council negotiations in accordance with Article 47 of the interinstitutional agreement of May 2006.
Hubert Pirker
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats I expressly support the proposal that the Council has put forward for integrating Europol into the framework of the European institutions, on several grounds.
Firstly, because we will have a new legal foundation, which will save us lengthy ratification procedures and therefore make it possible for Europol to adapt quickly and flexibly to new situations, and secondly, because not only will the protocols be adopted, but jurisdiction will be extended to encompass preparatory data and data on procurement of funds, because the operating appropriations are being increased, because the funding comes from the EU budget and therefore greater independence is established for Europol as well and better monitoring opportunities are provided for us as Parliament and last but not least, because in future, data protection will also continue to be safeguarded at a very high level.
I would like to thank the rapporteur for his very realistic amendments, particularly as regards the tasks of the mixed committee, the immunity of Europol employees in their operational commitments, the role of Parliament in appointing the Director and also particularly as regards data protection. He has done an excellent job here on Parliament's behalf.
If all these proposals are accepted, Europol will become more effective, more flexible and more manageable.
I have no sympathy for the Liberals' proposal to postpone all these measures to strengthen Europol to provide more security in the interest of citizens until the Treaty comes into force. We need security now, which means we need Europol now. We have to do the work now and then we shall certainly deal with the subject once again - should it be necessary - after the Treaty has come into force.
I would therefore ask the Liberals to reconsider their proposal and if possible withdraw the amendment.
Claudio Fava
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Socialist group welcomes the adoption of the Europol report and the proposal to convert Europol into an EU agency. After an extremely long period of waiting we are finally in a position to make Europol into a concrete and effective tool in combating organised crime, as well as many other dangerous types of crime which are now manifesting themselves at European level - I am thinking, for instance, of the action that Europol will be able to take on money-laundering.
Our group wanted to strengthen the supervisory powers specified in the proposal into genuine parliamentary supervision, not just restricted to budgetary powers, of course, and we wanted to strengthen the provisions on personal data protection and data security, particularly in the absence of a good framework decision on data protection in the third pillar, which is still taking its time in coming.
We cannot, however, ignore the fact, as pointed out by Mr Díaz de Mera García, that meanwhile the context has changed: the signing of the Lisbon Treaty creates the prospect that in the near future police cooperation will be subject to co-decision by the European Parliament and thus to our full responsibility, to qualified majority voting in Council and to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. This is why we are asking the Slovenian Presidency for a formal undertaking to put a review of the dossier before the European Parliament within six months of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Finally, the Socialist group still believes that it would have been more appropriate, on a matter as sensitive as this, for the rapporteur to have withdrawn to a certain degree, in view of the events that saw him involved in politics in his country. Our group has, however, decided not to leave out his contribution to a dossier that we believe to be of strategic importance for the process of European integration.
Alexander Alvaro
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Mr Vice-President, Minister, before I begin I should like to thank Mr°Díaz de Mera García Consuegra for his constructive and outstanding cooperation. Our teamwork, including with colleagues from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, has been very good despite, incidentally, the isolated case where the Socialists criticised the rapporteur.
We have no misgivings at all about the expansion of Europol, which was founded in 1994 as the European Drug Unit and was converted into Europol, as we now know it, in 1999. This is necessary to protect our population in the fight against organised crime, which does not stop at borders, whether these be sea, land or air. In the same way, Europe's officials must be able to take action and deal with it. It must be equally clear, however, that there are certain ground rules in police work.
Immunity of Europol officers, as is regulated in the codicil, does not make sense. This has to be said. It does not make sense that Europe's police officers should have more powers as Europol officers than others do. Nor does it make sense that there are no parliamentary controls over police cooperation. After all, we want to create an efficient authority, which can also be called to account for any mistakes it may make, and not the Sheriff of Nottingham!
The same applies to the judicial scrutiny of Europol. It is inconceivable that a police authority in Europe should be able to act without its actions being subject to judicial review. As a result we Liberals (our colleague Mr Pirker has perhaps misunderstood this) have introduced an amendment, whereby a revision clause is to be adopted, as Mr Fava has already stated, so that the European Parliament is able to deal with this once again six months after the Treaty of Lisbon comes into force.
As for the rest, we - that is the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, at least - also expect a clear statement from the Council here that this revision clause is being considered and included in the negotiations. In the face of a structural majority, we would not wish to make use of Article 53 or Article 168 of the Rules of procedure, that is, referral to the Committee, because we, too, believe that we need Europol now and that its expansion should not be delayed. However, when forced to, we must act in this way.
Seán Ó Neachtain
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (GA) Mr President, I should like first of all to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, on his report. As we know, we are living in a Union in which citizens can travel freely, but coordination at EU level in the sphere of justice and home affairs nevertheless needs to play a more central role.
Organised crime is tending to become more internationalised, and the onus is thus on the EU to enable Europol to assume an active role in halting the illegal flow of drugs from non-EU countries. Europol must endeavour to stamp out the illicit trafficking whereby many people are being smuggled into the EU - more often than not against their will - to work in the sex industry, for example.
Ireland will soon be holding a referendum on the European Treaty, and I should like to place it on record that we shall continue in the future to play our full part in the European justice and home affairs sphere - just as we have done up to now. And that we shall not exercise the option of saying no unless a problem arises as regards domestic legislation.
Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, sincerely for his work. He had already produced a really good piece of work, and was then very constructive in the way he dealt with the amendments tabled by Members. My group can therefore endorse his report.
I would like to make it clear to the Council, however, that support for the Díaz de Mera García Consuegra report is not synonymous with support for the Council decision, because there are still some differences between the two, particularly regarding data protection. The report rules out the unrestrained use of databases, as data may only be used for specific purposes, must be subject to judicial control in the Member States, and may only be processed on a case-by-case basis.
My question is whether the Council would like to respond to those amendments. Commissioner Frattini has just set a good example by going into the specifics of the report, enabling us to see exactly what the Commission stands for. I thank him sincerely for this. I now hope that the President-in-Office can make it clear what the Council thinks of the European Parliament's additions.
Not everyone in my group is a staunch supporter of a strong police force, but any improvement in judicial and democratic control can count on our strong support. Therefore, we support the conversion of Europol into an agency, with the associated increase in budgetary control. We are also in favour of greater judicial control; and so I consider the proposal of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe to be extremely sensible, and shall give it my support.
As Mr Alvaro has just said, admittedly rather cautiously, we can have another look at this in six months' time. As far as I am concerned, we shall not only look at the proposal, but also modify it. My question to the Council is this: do you plan to accept this proposal? If so, what difference do you believe it will make as regards control by the Court of Justice, including over Europol?
Giusto Catania
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I also think that we need to have a transnational police force that can specifically tackle international crime, which today is no longer confined within national borders.
Only a few days ago the Italian Parliament's anti-Mafia commission went to Germany, where it found that an enormous amount of the financial resources invested in Germany have been obtained through a mechanism that directly involves Sicilian and Calabrian criminals. I believe that this is emblematic of the real need to combat crime on an international basis, and one way to do so is by putting in place European police resources.
I believe that Europol can accomplish this job, but I have some doubts about whether transforming Europol into an agency can immediately salvage it. We have a duty to evaluate Europol's activities from 1994 to today, and I believe that we will probably also need to review its specific mission, because I think that its priorities ought to be tackling drug trafficking, money-laundering and transnational Mafia organisations.
I believe that there are also still some problems regarding the need to fully recognise Parliament's powers. Parliament should have supervisory powers - this is the case for all national parliaments, which have supervisory powers over the national police - and I believe that the European Parliament should have supervisory powers over a European agency whose key tasks are policing and combating international crime. I also believe that we need to have some clarifications on data protection.
I am extremely worried because the proposal, as it has been adopted and probably will be adopted in the future by the Council, has serious deficiencies which put the individual data of European citizens at serious risk.
Roger Knapman
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, the rapporteur was, I understand, the Director-General of Spain's police between 2002 and 2004. This means, I assume, that one of his last tasks before leaving office was to deal with the immediate aftermath of the terrible bombings in Madrid. I, therefore, accept the sincerity with which he now puts the case for extending the powers of EUROPOL in order to deal with new terrorist threats.
However, I will not need to remind him that my country, too, has had a long history of facing up to terrorism and, like his country, that consisted for many years of a threat from separatists, which, in recent years, has been matched by the new threat of Islamic extremism. What I am saying is that my country is very grateful for help and cooperation from its neighbours where necessary, but, in the final analysis, it must be able to act exactly according to its own methods and procedures and on its own initiative.
But what is being proposed here is not just a further encroachment of EUROPOL into areas that should be left under the control of Member States. Worse still than that, the Commission wants to change the legal framework governing EUROPOL so that any extension of EUROPOL's powers does not have to be ratified by Member States. The rapporteur concludes his statement by saying that we must ensure EUROPOL enjoys maximum democratic legitimacy. Once again, we see that the EU, as it seeks to take powers from Member States, even in matters of policing, has a very strange idea of democratic legitimacy.
Jim Allister
Madam President, whatever the desirability of combating terrorism and organised crime - and it is desirable - it is clear to me that this expansion of the role for EUROPOL and the change in its legal basis and title are about something quite different. They are, in fact, about giving the apparatus of statehood to the EU.
States naturally and properly have police forces. Now the EU is to have its own right to have European police officers, funded from the EU budget and staffed by EU officials. In truth and in fact, they will be EU policemen doing the bidding of the EU and roaming across Europe, meddling in the work of national police forces, particularly since their competence to initiate and lead inquiries is to be extended beyond organised crime into ever increasing areas of criminal law.
Then, to crown what for me is that absurdity, these EU policemen are to have immunity from national constraints and their actions put beyond the reach of judicial review. That causes me to reject these proposals. They are but the latest manifestation of super statehood for the EU - all under the framework of the Constitution and none of it with the consent of the peoples of Europe because of the conspiracy amongst EU leaders to subvert democracy and refuse referendums.
Carlos Coelho
(PT) Vice-President Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, in 1998 the European Parliament rejected all the initiatives presented to it when consulted on matters of detail relating to Europol. It did so out of consistency as long as Europol continued, in the intergovernmental context, without being subject to democratic and jurisdictional control. Now this initiative has come in response to what we have constantly been requesting in this plenary, with the aim of converting Europol into an EU agency, financed from the Community budget, and strengthening our role of democratic control.
Despite this proposal being a subject of deep controversy in Council, I think that we should not accept any further postponement. The European Parliament has an obligation to show its support for the Commission's initiative to make Europol an EU agency. Europol's current legal framework, an international convention, moreover impedes any process of updating or modifying powers, with delays of years. Indeed, the increase of new threats to security, such as terrorism, which poses new challenges to Europol, requires a new approach.
Hence the importance of this decision, which should not only place Europol on an equal footing with Eurojust and the European Police College but also make it more efficient in operation, extending its mandate to crimes that are not strictly related to organised crime and introducing greater flexibility into its mechanisms. At the same time greater transparency and democratic and jurisdictional control must be guaranteed.
I therefore support the excellent report that Mr Díaz de Mera has produced, and the important amendments he tabled, notably regarding data protection. I would like to pay tribute to Mr Díaz de Mera and express my solidarity for the excellent report he has produced and for the person that he is, especially as some Members tried unfairly to diminish his work, raising national struggles that have furthermore already had a full response from the Spanish Supreme Court of Justice.
Marek Aleksander Czarnecki
- (PL) The main task that the European Police Office faces is that of improving efficiency of action and cooperation between the authorities in Member States as regards preventing and combating international organised crime. The agency's mission is to make a contribution to the sphere of law enforcement in the European Union with reference to this form of crime. This is becoming increasingly important in the face of the new forms of crime which are constantly appearing and the threat of terrorism.
Life is forcing us to expand Europol's powers and also to adapt the principles on which it functions through the introduction of more flexible mechanisms. With the agency proposed by the rapporteur, however, there is an urgent need for the introduction of clear principles for the democratic monitoring of Europol and personal data protection.
Athanasios Pafilis
- (EL) Madam President, in its proposal for the establishment of a European police force, the Commission is seeking to transform Europol from a body based on inter-state agreement into an institutional body of the European Union. This, in my view, shows how wide ranging Europol's enforcement operations are and is proof of the overall strengthening of the European Union's enforcement framework and mechanisms.
Two things grow quickly in the European Union: the profits of companies and of capital, and aggressive enforcement mechanisms. We have filled all our respective countries with police forces and enforcement mechanisms and now this is happening at EU level too.
This development also expands Europol's field of activity and includes all punishable acts in its sphere of competence. It acquires the right to intervene even in the Member States themselves in relation to international events of major significance with consequences for public order, such as international demonstrations. Alongside the vast SIS II and VIS monitoring systems etc., the Europol information system will be used to file personal data relating to workers throughout the European Union as well as data relating to political, trade union and social activities and personal convictions. This data will be exchanged not only between the security services and secret services of the EU Member States, but also with private individuals, such as independent assassins operating in Iraq.
The claims that the transformation of Europol is purportedly a democratic development are self-deceiving or at best naïve. Why? Because there is no real possibility of controlling the inaccessible citadel of Europol or of restricting its enforcement activities. Furthermore, many people have commented on the immunity of Europol police offers and the inadequacy of any national control. For these reasons we are firmly opposed to the proposal.
Nils Lundgren
(SV) Madam President, we have created a single market with free movement of goods, services, capital and people. Almost everyone has agreed to participate in Schengen. In practice all border controls in the EU have been abolished. From a liberal point of view, this is a gigantic step forward. We no longer need to stand with cap in hand in front of officials when we want to study, work, travel or seek health care in another EU country.
However, freedom has its downside. When border controls disappeared, the scope for organised crime increased enormously. This eased the way for the drugs trade, the exchange of stolen goods and trafficking. Sometimes this expansion in organised crime is used as proof that the EU is needed. That is grotesque. The expansion is facilitated by the EU, a price we are obliged to pay for increased freedom and prosperity. How high is that price? Well, police resources have to be increased perhaps by 1-2% of GDP at national level in order to roll back this phenomenon. Such an increase in national resources is the most important and perhaps the only way to restore an honest, decent Europe.
The rapporteur wants to transfer power over the police to Brussels. Europol should become an EU body financed from the EU budget. He makes light of questions of integrity and democratic legitimacy. We must therefore say no to this report, focus on the expansion of national police resources and let Europol remain a cooperation body subject to intergovernmental procedures.
Fernand Le Rachinel
(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this report proposes nothing more and nothing less than to give the European Police Office, Europol, a new status by modifying its existing legal bases.
Indeed, the intention is to replace the Europol Convention concluded in 1995 between the Member States with a Council decision converting the agency from an intergovernmental body into a European Union agency financed from the Community budget and applying the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities. The reasons given for this radical change of status are the extension of the mandate of Europol's activities beyond just organised crime and the Member States' inability to meet these new and very extensive objectives adequately. These objectives will obviously be better met at European Union level, the Council assures us.
But this is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is that we are already engaged with the requirements and application of the Treaty of Lisbon, which transfers almost all of justice and home affairs policy to a qualified majority of the Council of Ministers. Until now, these fields of judicial and police cooperation have required unanimity. The reality is that our national and European leaders are in the process of imposing on us institutional reforms that all work towards a more deeply supranational and bureaucratic model.
It is these same reforms that are in the Treaty of Lisbon that were rejected by the French and Dutch in the referendums of May and June 2005. The people have been duped, misled and treated with contempt. Europe cannot be built contrary to its people and contrary to national realities, and it is high time that our pro-European political class realised this and finally left Europe to construct itself from the nations' and people's rights to identity, sovereignty, freedom and security.
Margaritis Schinas
- (EL) Madam President, as a member of the Committee on Budgets and also as an MEP who comes from a region on the European Union's external borders, I would like to make three observations:
Firstly, turning Europol into a Community agency requires that we receive more value for money from its work. We want this Community Europol to have a greater presence in places where we need it - in the Balkans, combating the organised mafia - and not in staffrooms or offices.
Secondly, within the Community Europol framework, the national police forces must gradually overcome their distrust of each other. The Member States' police authorities must learn to cooperate above and beyond borders and national priorities. The transformation of Europol into a Community agency allows for this.
Thirdly and most importantly, we have devoted much time to the institutional dimension of this file. I wish to offer my full support to the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, who chose a practical and realistic solution. We cannot paralyse the entire procedure until 2009 while we wait for the perfect institutional solution, nor can we carry on theological debates when issues are pressing. The time for action is now, and now we must act. It is within this context, then, that I express my full support for the approach mapped out by the rapporteur, and I hope that this debate will be the first stage in the formation of a genuine European Community police service capable of dealing with problems.
Georgios Georgiou
- (EL) Madam President, once again we must salute the development of this large police body known as Europol. We have been doing so since 1992. The records of its performance have not been bad. I have the impression that the new form which we are attempting to give it will create problems, bearing in mind that the British police will be operating in Paris and Greek police officers in Berlin. We will see how to get around this, but there is always the problem of distrust between police authorities.
I salute Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra's very careful work. If we need to restrict Europol's activities to terrorism issues, then among other crimes it must try to find real terrorism, rather than develop a mechanism which, instead of hunting down terrorism, hangs like a noose, stifling the human and political rights of European citizens.
Hynek Fajmon
(CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that the change in the legal standing of Europol, which we are now discussing, is not a step in the right direction. Europol is functioning well at present and does not need any changes to its status. Police work is the domain of the Member States and the main responsibility for the work therefore rests, logically and rightly, with the national governments, which are controlled by the national parliaments. This approach is already implicitly respected even in Schengen cooperation, in which the Czech Republic has been fully involved since the end of last year. Police cooperation at EU level is therefore, logically, subject to an inter-governmental approach. The Commission now wishes to abandon this correct and logical approach and, in fact, re-shape Europol into a new agency that is subordinate to the European institutions. However, an agency format is not suitable for Europol and will not bring any benefits. The national interior ministers will have less and less control of Europol there will be no advantages in terms of the fight against crime. In my opinion, to start with there should be proper and democratic ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, which also has a bearing on Europol's legal basis: only after that can negotiations begin on a possible amendment of the legal basis. For this reason I will be voting against this report.
Alexander Stubb
Madam President, just to show that the PPE-DE Group has a lot of diversity, I completely disagree with the previous speaker and would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur on an excellent report.
I think this report is very good and I think it is good for three reasons. The first reason is that it expands the powers of EUROPOL. It brings it into the Community budget, it creates an agency, and it extends its mandate beyond organised crime. I think that is a very important step forward.
The second reason I think it is good is because it calls for more flexibility. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that, if an organisation is established in 1995 and its conventions are amended three times from 2000 to 2003 and those changes enter into force only in the year 2007, the organisation is not working. It is not flexible enough. We need more flexibility and I think that is what this report proposes. There is nothing more conservative in this world than an interior ministry or a police establishment and I think we have seen it with EUROPOL.
The third point is: I think that this is a good report because it increases supranational and communautaire elements and it decreases intergovernmental elements. It increases judicial scrutiny and democracy - and if there is one area where you have to work together, it is this. The more free movement you have, the more Schengen you have, the more international crime you have, the more we need cooperation on a European level and I think this report is a good step in that direction.
Javier Moreno Sánchez
(ES) Madam President, a small clarification. As our Socialist coordinator said, we Socialists still think that the rapporteur is not the most suitable person to produce reports on judicial and police cooperation.
It is true, as Mr Coelho said, that the Supreme Court has closed the case, but it is a question of ethics and political dignity.
I will explain: I should make it clear that the rapporteur refused to cooperate with the Spanish legal system and was fined for it. This was not a trivial matter: it was the trial of the terrorists accused of the worst attack that has been perpetrated in the European Union.
We therefore think that, for the sake of consistency, a person cannot refuse to cooperate with the legal system in Spain and then lecture Europe on how the Member States should cooperate with each other in police and judicial matters.
Geoffrey Van Orden
Madam President, what we have heard in this debate is the usual confusion between cooperation and integration. I very much support those who have expressed concern at the EU efforts to expand EUROPOL's powers and competence. Of course we need good cooperation between police and security services. I happen to believe that we have always had that good cooperation at the operational level, but it can always be improved. Indeed, in my experience at EUROPOL - and I am probably one of the few Members of this House who has been to EUROPOL on a number of occasions - most of its activity is bilateral, which gives the lie to this idea that it has some other great role.
The need for cooperation is very different to the involvement of the European Union institutions, which is merely part of the EU's wider agenda of political integration.
Charles Tannock
Madam President, I wanted to add my voice to that of my colleague, Geoffrey Van Orden, and my previous colleague from the Czech Republic, from the ODS. I disagree with Mr Stubb. I am also nervous - and I do not think it would be supported by many of my constituents in the United Kingdom - about the idea of turning EUROPOL into a kind of supranational fledging European Union FBI-style organisation.
Like all colleagues, I am, of course, in favour of intergovernmental cooperation in police, intelligence and security matters, particularly when we face growing problems from international organised crime, international terrorism etc. EUROPOL already has quite an extensive remit in areas like people trafficking as well, but we do not need to extend the powers of EUROPOL. It should be an agency charged with acting as a gatekeeper in terms of exchange of information and also building up more confidence between our national police forces and our security and intelligence services. There is a lot of mistrust between some of the Member States' traditional law enforcement agencies. Europol should be acting as a kind of coordinator and not be given special rights. I would particularly object to any idea of EU policemen being able to go into our own Member States with powers of arrest.
Alexander Stubb
Madam President, I cannot resist the temptation of answering my two colleagues Mr Van Orden and Mr Tannock. We are not trying to create some kind of a US FBI type of organisation here, we are simply trying to have police cooperation which works better, which is more effective, which is more transparent, which is more flexible and which simply works. That is what we do not have today, that is what we are trying to do.
I do not want to get into the internal UK debate and scaremongering, that we are creating some kind of FBI with some kind of superpowers, with European police coming into your house to arrest you. That is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to get the third pillar cooperation of police to work better. That is all.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) Allow me just a comment or two on this extremely interesting debate, which I am honoured to attend.
My first comment relates to the Council's attitude towards amendments, of which there are many, although I cannot represent the Council's opinion here just yet. As was said in the introduction, the Council is still deliberating on this decision and it will resume deliberation within this framework after the amendments. However, I can maintain that as the Presidency we will strive for a detailed and mindful debate of all the amendments to be approved. We will also strive for the greatest possible number to be included in the text of the decision. I cannot guarantee more that this. As we know, approval of a decision at this moment in time still requires the consensus of all the Member States.
This leads me to the following comment regarding the revision clause. There is no Council opinion on this either, but I think that, in the name of the Council, I can express a certain doubt about building into the text of an act such as this mechanisms which should automatically be activated in the period after the Treaty of Lisbon comes into effect. The Treaty of Lisbon has not yet come into force. Its enforcement is in the hands of the national parliaments and in at least one case in the hands of the voters.
It is my opinion that by building such a mechanism into acts of this kind, we will not facilitate the approval of acts such as this; what is more, we will not facilitate ratification procedures that are currently taking place. I also think that this question received a satisfactory solution in declaration No. 50 attached to the Treaty of Lisbon.
Alexander Alvaro
- (DE) Madam President, because I had the feeling that the Minister had misunderstood this, I just wanted to take the liberty very briefly of pointing out the fact that the revision clause does not in any way jeopardise or influence ratification of the Treaty, but simply guarantees that after ratification, Parliament will once again deal with the Europol report. After consultation with other permanent representatives, it does not seem to me that this threat is seen as general.
Franco Frattini
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for all the contributions that have been made. I will be very brief.
Firstly I will give a general reply to all those who have expressed doubts about the need to strengthen Europol, those who have spoken about the will of the people and the concerns of citizens. I would like to say that if there is one subject on which the vast majority of European citizens expresses fear regarding the free movement of criminals and asks for more security, it is this very subject of police cooperation. If there is one subject on which the more is said, as Mr Stubb noted, the more the movement of persons is liberalised, the more need there is for European coordination and action on transnational crime and thus the concept of a European agency is certainly not that of a bureaucratic body, but of a fast, effective operational tool.
This is why I am convinced - and this is not only because I put forward the proposal - of the need to adopt this decision speedily, as the Slovenian Presidency wishes. Regarding the amendments, I have already mentioned the amendment tabled by Mr Alvaro. I would like to remind you that the idea of having a regular review of the smooth operation of current 'third pillar' initiatives is something permitted by Declaration No 50, which has just been mentioned. What does this say? It says that the Commission, on a case-by-case basis, when the situation is appropriate, following entry into force of the Treaty, shall propose the review of instruments currently falling within the third pillar in order to change them into instruments over which Parliament has full co-decision powers and to which the procedures which Parliament in my view rightly wishes for apply. Thus the instrument already exists for this purpose.
It is perhaps the imposition of such a restricted time frame to this instrument that poses some problems for me personally, but I also wonder, and I have no preconceptions on this point: is it advisable to plan a review of an instrument such as the Europol decision, which has not yet entered into force? I ask the question because you know that if we were to adopt this decision before the end of the Slovenian Presidency - in June 2008 - it would enter into force in January 2010. So can we already plan to undertake to review an instrument when its operation will begin in January 2010?
I would not be opposed to arguing, when it is in operation, if problems emerge that are linked to insufficient democratic monitoring, that that would be an excellent reason for the European Commission to apply Declaration No 50 and change the instrument from the third pillar to the new system. One of my reasons for giving this example is to say that we cannot close the door on Parliament's need for democratic monitoring, but it is perhaps the manner and time frames of this strict compulsory review procedure that pose problems for us.
Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra
Madam President, before you start counting the time, I would like to ask you to take the following into consideration: please give me the two minutes that I am entitled to so that I can respond out of courtesy to all of my colleagues, the Council and the Commission, but also, Madam President, I earnestly ask you to give me some separate time to answer the very serious, unjustified allusions that have been made about me. May I count on your understanding, Madam President? Thank you very much.
I am very grateful to almost all my colleagues - and I emphasise the word 'almost' - for their contributions, and I very especially take them on board. I would like to say that the concerns that have been expressed here are not only the concerns of the rapporteur, but that they are also the concerns of the House. It has been very gratifying for me to hear how well disposed the Council is and the wise words of compromise and also clarification from Vice-President Frattini.
I would therefore like to thank all my fellow Members, those who have honoured me with their support as well as those who have honoured me with their criticisms. You should not forget that I have been a Member of Parliament for seventeen years, and still am, and I was the Director-General of Police for the Kingdom of Spain for two years. I was. That is how I am able to see both sides of the coin.
President-in-Office of the Council, I would therefore like once again to highlight the issues that concern us: we cannot fight crime on our own. Crime is transnational. Crime goes beyond borders, and our police forces, which are national, need to have in Europol an instrument to support and strengthen them. Not one that interferes or overlaps with their work, but one that supports and strengthens them.
Guarantees are very important to us. It is very important to us to support and strengthen Europol, but with three criteria: confidence, control and guarantees. This is naturally what has been made clear in our report and in the contributions of fellow members.
Data protection in the Framework Decision in the third pillar as soon as possible is important to us. It is extremely important to us that Parliament has control and it is very important to us to decisively and determinedly fight organised crime together.
Now, Madam President, due to the allusions, I would like to answer the second, much more unpleasant, question. Mr Moreno does not respect judicial decisions. The Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Spain and the Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Spain said these exact words in reference to my case. I do not know if they translate well, but they said these exact words, 'no crime whatsoever'.
However, some people, such as Mr Moreno, have not had and do not have the intellectual and moral integrity to apologise for spreading something that they should not have spread. What Mr Moreno has done here is to intoxicate Parliament comme d'habitude with issues that do not have anything to do with the report or with the heart of the matter.
He talks about morality and lack of dignity. It is immoral and undignified not to respect judicial decisions and, on top of that, to throw them back in the face of a colleague who does have dignity and morality. I will not say that Mr Moreno is undignified and immoral, but what I will say is that he has behaved in an undignified and immoral way.
What I will say in his defence is that I would like to think that they are not his own ideas, but that he has behaved, not like a messenger boy, but rather that this time he has had the brazenness to act as the messenger boy. Why? In order to unjustifiably discredit and perhaps in the vain attempt to get a few column inches in the Spanish press.
President
(FR) The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 17 January 2008.


Draft amending budget No 7/2010: guarantee provided by the European Union in accordance with the provisions of Article 122 of the TFEU - financial assistance to Member States (debate)
President
The next item is the report by László Surján, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the Council's position on Draft amending budget No 7/2010 of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III - Commission (13476/2010 - C7-0261/2010 -.
László Surján
Honourable Council representatives, Commissioner Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposed and the Council adopted the seventh amendment to the 2010 budget. What is the essence of this amendment?
Well, if we wanted to joke around, this would be a good topic. We have created a blank line, a new line in the budget, into which we will not put a single cent, let alone billions. At the same time, journalists revel in reporting that this involves EUR 60 billion. This EUR 60 billion, as the caption indicates, is none other than a guarantee, and the Commission believes that the chance of it being called in, of having to actually pay it up, is zero.
Well, the worst case scenario is not always to our liking, but the main point is that there is very little likelihood of having to move actual sums of money through this row. So why have it at all? And why as early as now, in the 2010 budget? Because what we are talking about is, in fact, part of the plan designed by the European Union to resolve the financial crisis of countries getting into difficulties in the future.
This is the item that refers primarily to the Parliament and the European Union's budget, and has an upper limit which cannot exceed EUR 60 billion for the period ending in 2014. This 60 billion is a fixed upper limit. Why must we do this now? We must do it because this is a message. A message to the market. A message to those who doubt that we want to rescue countries which may get into difficulties in the future. At the moment, there is no need for this, so there is no point filling it up with money, but it is worth adding the line to enable us to act promptly if it is needed in the future.
This blank line is also a message to Member States concerned that we are taking more money away from them, to reassure them that this is not the case here. This story is not about Greece. It is, first of all, about the future. This is why it is not right for a Member State to try to evade the duty of solidarity by referring to the Greeks' supposed or actual errors. The proposal before us is a plan for solidarity among Member States, and without solidarity, ladies and gentlemen, there is no European Union.
Janusz Lewandowski
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, Draft amending budget No 7 is a follow-up to the decision to establish the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which is, in turn, the response to the dramatic developments of March, April and May in the financial markets. Therefore, the European financial stabilisation mechanism - up to EUR 60 billion - has been established in addition to the already existing balance of payments facility, with more or less the same philosophy.
In response to the question from László Surján, under the normal desired circumstances, even if a European financial stabilisation mechanism is mobilised, this should not have an impact on the EU budget. Under normal circumstances, that is, where the beneficiary state taking the loans repays the loans, it is activated as a guarantee but without a financial impact upon the budget.
In the highly unlikely scenario - not zero probability, unfortunately, but very unlikely scenario - that a Member State defaults on its obligations, we have to ensure that the European Union is ready in time to fulfil its legal obligations towards the lenders.
So we should be ready for this unlikely bad scenario. Put simply, that is, in a sense, what is behind Draft budget No 7. Therefore, as with the balance of payments facility, we proposed creating a structure for the new budget item on the expenditure side of the budget and a corresponding new budget article on the revenue side of the budget. These are token entries - as happened with the balance of payments facilities - and have the same logic behind them. The philosophy behind this is that we should be ready in case.
I am therefore happy that Draft amending budget No 7 has been discussed and has already been formally adopted by the Council on 13 September. Now we hope for the same decision from Parliament.
Francesca Balzani
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the amending budget we are discussing today and will be voting on in the coming days is an important document. It marks the last step for implementation of the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which was sorely needed in May to calm the severe storm that hit the euro and, therefore, the EU.
One certainty came out of that storm: there are no individual Member State problems any more, because the individual problems inevitably become the problems of them all, and so a common response is required. Europe has found the courage and the strength to provide this common response that we are, in fact, discussing here today.
This new budget line marks a clear boundary. It is the first step towards a new common approach to the financial policies and also, in the future, to the economic policies of Member States with regard to the European budget. It is the first step towards that integrated semester in which the budget decisions of the individual Member States and the EU budget will be compared more closely.
The budget is therefore once again an instrument - which has always been the fundamental implementation of EU policies - that is taking centre stage and proving to be a fundamental vehicle for building Europe after the Treaty of Lisbon as well. Above all, it draws our attention to the importance of sound and responsible management of public resources as a prerequisite for real development and for a future of real European growth.
Isabelle Durant
Madam President, it is true that we are talking here quite calmly about an adjustment to the 2010 budget and about the insertion of one line for the record, an amending budget said to be 'technical'. We all know, however, that the calmness of this debate when compared to the previous one - which was a little less calm - is also due to a courageous and mutually supportive decision that was taken when tension was at its peak in the euro area last May.
In fact, that was a weekend when the Heads of State or Government created the first-rate European financial stabilisation mechanism, which allows the Union to borrow on the capital markets in order to provide loans to Member States that are in difficulty, subject to certain conditions.
It is truly this spirit of solidarity that allows guarantees to be provided in the interests of Europe as a whole, and which confers true added value on the European budget. There is the good example.
Unfortunately, the current own-resources ceiling, which is set at 1.23% of gross domestic product, has not been enough to create a self-sufficient mechanism. The budget's share accounts for no more than EUR 60 billion, and the rest - EUR 444 billion - is supplied by an intergovernmental system called the 'special purpose vehicle', which is guaranteed by the Member States in the euro area; a system from which, by the way, Slovakia has recently withdrawn.
Today's calm therefore certainly allows us to have a discussion, but it obliges us, above all, to go further and to do more within the framework of the future financial perspective. It is in this sense that I think we must raise the own-resources ceiling so that we can create a genuine macro-economic role for the European budget, which would, at the same time, provide a buffer or European investment plans and/or more guarantee mechanisms, depending on the state of the European economy.
We ought also to design new financial instruments. In this context, for example, Eurobonds, in partnership with the European Investment Bank, would be a very good tool.
Finally, we must, as a matter of urgency, introduce new own resources, such as the financial transactions tax, the carbon tax or a tax on businesses, which would, at one and the same time, allow us to reduce the GDP-based contributions from Member States and dispense with the infamous debate over net contributors.
So that is the enormous task that awaits us, especially in the Special Committee, but, Commissioner, these are also matters with which we must all be ready to engage.
Marta Andreasen
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, tomorrow we will be voting on Draft amending budget No 7, which covers the guarantee that the EU has been asked to provide for the European financial stabilisation mechanism. This mechanism, which makes it possible for the Union to borrow funds in the capital market and then loan to Member States in financial difficulties, implies that if a Member State is not able to reimburse the loan, the European budget would be used to cover the debt.
Colleagues, I call your attention to the fact that the guarantors of this financial stabilisation package are actually the Member States, many of which are themselves in the midst of a financial crisis. We are talking about EUR 60 billion. This is not a token. Where are we planning to find the money if the guarantee has to be honoured?
How can we vote in favour of such an amending budget when the Commission has not established priorities for spending from the budget in case the European Union is called to honour the guarantee? If we act responsibly in defence of constituents' interests - even if we are being told that the risk is low - we should vote against this resolution.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Madam President, the assistance given to Greece was sold to us as an exception from the bail-out ban, on the basis of Article 136. However, Article 136 does not provide a basis for giving credit to Greece since it only allows measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of the treaties. Not only are these not provided for in the TFEU; they are actually explicitly banned. The provision therefore does not authorise further measures, and this was also the conclusion reached by the Centre for European Politics, or CEP for short, in its relevant report. The finance ministers of the euro area decided to assist Greece by providing credit at an average interest rate of 5%. However, the CEP experts have proven that credit provided at a politically motivated interest rate that is below the market rate represents an illegal subsidy. The assistance given to Greece was thus extremely controversial from a legal point of view, if not downright unlawful.
As far as the actual implications are concerned, Commissioner, I would like to pass on to you the assessment made by the German economics expert Joachim Starbatty, which I fear is sadly correct: if the euro area countries continue to be answerable for the debts of other Member States, then in 10 years' time, the euro will no longer exist. We have to eradicate the disease, not simply put ointment on the wound. Euro area countries that can no longer service their debt need to become competitive again by leaving the monetary union. Otherwise, I believe the euro has no future.
Reimer Böge
(DE) Madam President, the Council has already taken flight - possibly because of the fierce criticism it met with on the previous item, although the content of the Surján report has done something to repair what was decided by the European Council during this difficult, long night on the stabilisation package. Now the Commissioner has spoken of the unlikely event of these guarantees being used in respect of the European budget. If we are optimists, then we will accept this basic assumption for the time being.
Nonetheless, we must bear in mind that where guarantees are concerned, we already have three unlikely cases in the European budget: a loan fund for the investment bank with guarantees of just over EUR 100 million. Before the euro was launched, we had a situation in which all the Member States were able to obtain assistance with supporting their balance of payments, at that time with a ceiling of EUR 16 billion. Following the introduction of the euro, this arrangement was restricted to non-euro countries, and in the wake of the 2009 financial crisis, the ceiling for non-euro Member States was expanded to EUR 50 billion, of which around EUR 9-10 billion is currently utilised as guarantees.
Now, with the Treaty of Lisbon, we have the situation that Article 143 explicitly refers to the non-euro countries. Undoubtedly, Article 352 would have been the most appropriate legal basis, but that would have meant getting Parliament involved - as well as some national parliaments - and therefore it was probably difficult to make recourse to it in the difficult circumstances of this decision. In this respect, then, Article 122 was certainly not the most correct legal basis, but it was the most politically expedient legal basis and the simplest without involving Parliament.
Clearly, there was a gap in our regulations here, but this did not result in the European Union being unable to act in a time of crisis. I can accept that. Nonetheless, the decision by the European Council on this tricky legal basis means making recourse - if necessary - to the margin between the limit of the Union's own resources and the maximum level of the multiannual financial framework.
Article 310 of the treaty clearly states that no legislative acts shall be adopted that exceed the limit of the Union's own resources or the multiannual financial framework. If need be, then, a revision is required. In this respect, the Council itself took a huge step without involving the budgetary authority as regards the future debate on the issue 'What is the upper limit of a financial perspective?'. So let me say that the future upper limit of the multiannual financial framework will be the limit of the Union's own resources, and nothing else.
We should approve the report on the grounds of political judiciousness, but we should encourage and fight to ensure that in future, we debate properly with each other the gaps in regulation that clearly exist as well as how to involve Parliament and how to close these gaps. This, too, should form part of the common interinstitutional agreement on the budget based on the Treaty of Lisbon.
Jacek Włosowicz
(PL) We are speaking, today, of a mechanism for financial stabilisation in Europe, and we are speaking about an amending budget. These are steps which are certainly intended to increase the security and reliability of the financial system in Europe. These measures certainly are necessary at the moment, so that we do not get into even greater financial difficulties in the future. I hope that the measures we are talking about, today, will be effective and will be, as it were, a medicine and will treat the symptoms. However, this medicine certainly will not remove the causes, and it is they which have been the main problem of recent months. Without fundamental changes to the European finance system, the measures we are now considering can only be of temporary help.
Therefore, we have to begin by making fundamental changes, so that Europe's finances will be more stable and transparent, and so that we, as Parliament, are not used every so often as fire fighters who are called to come and put out a fire. Such measures can only be a help and not the basis for permanent future action.
Angelika Werthmann
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, to ensure the financial stability of the euro area, a package of measures is now being launched. The question that concerns me in connection with this line is where this money is actually to come from in the event that, contrary to expectation, a Member State should make such an application.
You mention caution, Commissioner. In order that this event remains merely a hypothetical situation, I would really urge the Commission to pass measures that provide sufficient deterrent to ensure that the Member States genuinely do everything in their power to ensure they never find themselves in this situation.
Janusz Lewandowski
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, some small clarifications for Mrs Andreasen on this very issue. Draft amending budget No 7 does not involve the Member States' guarantees; that is for the other part. What is guaranteed by the Member States is EUR 440 billion of bilateral loans. As for the structure of the budget, this is the copy of a balance-of-payments facility, and again, this is a question which has been asked already.
This is a typical arrangement for budgetary items which concern lending operations without a specific quantified guarantee fund. This is therefore a token entry. If the need arises for fresh money - so far activated in the balance-of-payments facility for Hungary, Latvia and Romania up to an amount of EUR 14.6 billion - then the Commission will put forward a proposal on the appropriations needed by means of a transfer or an amending budget.
That is the machinery, but it is nothing new - merely an extension of an existing balance-of-payments facility to the eurozone member countries - and I agree with Reimer that this is a very flexible interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty.
László Surján
First of all, I owe thanks to the political groups supporting this report, and I believe that the report truly serves the interests of security. However, the critical remarks pointing out that we have an EUR 800 billion package out of which Parliament can consider or deal with 60 billion are also justified.
To some extent, this gives the impression that Parliament is not operating within the framework of the Treaty of Lisbon, or does not even exist yet. However, our job is to work with this EUR 60 billion and, in that respect, I would like to make it clear again that obligations are incumbent only upon euro area Member States. Therefore, if the words of a speaker who says no, protecting his or her constituents' interests, may be taken to mean that the UK will soon join the euro area, then this day deserves to be joyfully celebrated and written with red letters in the annals of the European Union.
Because I, unlike many others, do believe in the euro area and would like to see that my country, as well, will soon be required to take financial responsibility in this rescue plan. I do hope that the probability of this pledge being called in is zero or almost zero, since the Member State runs an enormous risk if it does not comply with its financial obligations after the rescue.
If I remember correctly, the Treaty of Lisbon even invokes the possibility of expulsion in certain circumstances. Non-compliance with financial obligations would be such a serious mistake that even this sanction would have to be given consideration. I think this is the guarantee that another speaker requested. In closing I wish to thank you once again for your attention, and I ask my fellow Members to support this report tomorrow. Let this be another source of security for the citizens of Europe!
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at midday tomorrow (Wednesday, 22 September 2010).
(The sitting was suspended at 18:35 and resumed at 19:00)


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)
President
You wish to take the floor, Mr Carnero González. I imagine that it is for a point of order. On the basis of which Rule do you wish to speak?
Carlos Carnero González
(ES) Yes, Mr President, I simply wished to mention the fact that the media is reporting that a European citizen, of Spanish nationality, Mr Emilio Morenatti, has been kidnapped in Gaza this morning by a group of armed men. I would ask that you call upon the Presidency of the Council and the Commission to do everything they can ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
President
That is not a point of order. I understand your concern, but the Rules of Procedure must be respected. I take good note of what you say, thank you.


19. (
- Before the vote on paragraph 35:
Ignasi Guardans Cambó
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, I should like to propose to the House an oral amendment to paragraph 35. If carried, it would render amendment 24 irrelevant. In English it would read as follows:
'Invites the European Union's trade partners to progressively reduce or dismantle barriers restricting market access for goods'
(ES) The remainder of the text would remain the same. Instead of asking for all barriers restricting market access to be immediately removed in full, it asks for them to be reduced gradually or, where necessary, for them to be dismantled.
(Parliament agreed to accept the amendment)
President
That concludes the vote.


Statement by the President
President
Ladies and gentlemen, the Conference of Presidents has asked me to make a statement on the events in the Middle East. The debate will take place on Wednesday afternoon in the presence of the Chairman of the Council of Foreign Ministers, Czech Foreign Minister Schwarzenberg. I mention this because it was not quite clear. We have put a lot of effort in and found him very willing to be with us, although he will have to travel to South Africa on the same day, if only for a limited time I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Czech Presidency most sincerely for this.
Ladies and gentlemen, whilst we are holding a plenary session at the start of the New Year here, people are once again dying in the Middle East.
Personally, and I am sure the same goes for most of us, I find I have a painful sense of déjà vu when I see the pictures on the television.
In the name of the European Parliament, I would like to express my deepest regret on the escalation of the Gaza conflict between Israel and Hamas.
I say quite categorically: it is not acceptable for people to suffer, for violence to continue and for United Nations employees to come under fire. How far must the spiral of violence go until sense and reason prevail?
The violence must cease immediately on both sides. The firing of rockets on Israeli towns and cities by Hamas is completely unacceptable and deserves the harshest criticism and we must not forget that it was Hamas who ended the ceasefire. Yet the proportionality of the means employed in the response must not be disregarded.
All people in the Middle East have the same worth. The inalienable right of a state to protect itself does not justify violent actions, the primary consequence of which is the suffering of the civilian population.
The people in the Gaza Strip must be given urgent help. A Palestinian is worth the same as an Israeli or a European or an American - all people on this earth are equal. We must not allow a worsening of the humanitarian situation!
As responsible politicians, we must be prepared to decisively contribute to finding a permanent way out of this spiral of violence in the short term.
Attempting to reduce security to purely military aspects is doomed to failure, in my opinion. Therefore, there can be no exclusively military solution to the problem in the Middle East. A political solution must be reached in the end. Above all, this means learning lessons from the failure of the previous approach. Therefore, it is a matter of taking measures that are not only viable but also, and above all, sustainable.
Over the past few days I have been in contact by telephone with the Israeli President, Shimon Peres, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, the Speaker of the Knesset, Dalia Itzik, and of course with the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, who has been in the region for quite some time now.
I have also been in contact with the Vice President of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly because I am currently Chairman of that Assembly, the President of the Jordanian Parliament, Abdel Hadi Al-Majali, the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Gianfranco Fini and the President of the Moroccan Parliament, Mustapha Mansouri
I have always made it clear in all these conversations that the European Parliament is fully behind the demands formulated by the Council of Ministers on behalf of the European Union and confirmed by the resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations on 8 January 2009.
It is depressing that this legally binding resolution of the Security Council, from which the Americans abstained so that it could be carried, is disregarded by both sides in the conflict, which is to say both Israel and Hamas.
An immediate and permanent ceasefire must come into force. This ceasefire must be achieved with the mediation of Egypt and the involvement of all players. Immediate and unhindered access to humanitarian aid must be ensured and the United Nations Work and Relief Agency (UNRWA) enabled to continue its humanitarian activities unhindered. And I would also like to say: not just for three hours a day!
When even the humanitarian organisations and the United Nations have to stop their work because the warring parties do not observe their neutrality, we have reached an unacceptable low point with regard to international law and humanity.
The third requirement is to intensify the peace process. The only viable basis for permanent peace is, and remains, a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine as sovereign states within secure borders.
The European Union, together with the members of the Quartet on the Middle East, with moderate Arab partners and with all participants in the conflict, must bring about a rapid resumption of the peace negotiations under the umbrella of the United Nations. However, a comprehensive solution also clearly requires reconciliation and, in particular, a reconciliation between the Palestinian factions.
Today we must question the method we have used so far in what we have called the 'peace process'. We could still assume until a few weeks ago that we were on the right track with the negotiations despite the well-known difficult environment and barely discernible progress. The international community and, first and foremost, we, as the European Union, have supported these negotiations through our strong commitment and we have given financial aid to create the basic conditions for establishing a Palestinian state.
But was this commitment politically strong enough? We must ask ourselves this question. In the meantime, we are again in the process of escalation. It is understandable that, in times of crisis management, we tend to think in the short term. We actually need an immediate ceasefire right now and a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces, as required by the UN Security Council.
Experience over recent decades has taught us that peace in the Middle East cannot come from the region alone. However, it also true that it will not be possible without reconciliation between the hostile parties in the conflict.
Therefore, the international community must be prepared to promote peace in the Middle East more than ever before so that the bitter events of past decades do not remain bitter experiences for decades to come.
International forces can and must help to secure a ceasefire. Therefore, we must all make efforts to ensure that the Egyptian-French plan to institute an international mechanism to secure Gaza's borders will be a success and it must, of course, be dependent as a priority upon a cessation of the smuggling of arms and rockets into the Gaza area. The European Union had already announced in its action strategy paper at the start of the Annapolis process that it is prepared to become involved in this way.
But let me highlight one thing in particular: deployment of European and international security forces may not guarantee a ceasefire in the short term. It must pursue a clear political objective of creating the required trust for the conclusion of peace talks by guaranteeing security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. This means that by the deployment of some troops, which is only viable with a solid mandate, political influence will be increased on all sides in order to find a peaceful solution.
We need not only the repeated commitment to peace which we have so often formulated as our goal in the past. What we need is the willingness not only to aim for peace but to achieve it, and in fact before the hatred built up over decades escalates further and unleashes a conflagration.
In closing, I would like to remind you that 2008 was the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. I would also like to remind you how much we as the European Parliament have done to make this year a year of hope and we are setting political priorities that emphasise that the clash of cultures is not the law of nature.
Worldwide reactions to the war in Gaza show how quickly attempts at intercultural dialogue can be destroyed when they are overtaken by the reality of the images that we see daily on the news. Worse still is the fact that this reality plays into the hands of extremists and fundamentalists whose goal is not peace but to continue the spiral of confrontation.
Violence breeds more violence. This concept cannot be repeated often enough. Dialogue and negotiations are the only way out of this crisis. Both are not ends in themselves but must be conducted bravely with the aim that the people of Israel and Palestine can live in real security, in peace and with respect for their dignity.
(Applause)