Approval of the Minutes of the previous sitting President The Minutes of yesterday's sitting have been distributed. Are there any comments? Helmer Mr President, on Monday I made a point of order about President Nicole Fontaine's reported comments in the British press regarding her recent visit with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. A British Labour Member of this House, Mr Miller, repeated what were purported to be the Queen's remarks, not once but three times, on Monday, on Tuesday and on Wednesday. He sought to drag the Queen into a political controversy and to use her name to score cheap political points. Mr President, it may be that President Fontaine was unfamiliar with the British rules of protocol which obtain in such matters, but Mr Miller has no such excuse. He knows perfectly well that ours is a non-political Head of State. He knows perfectly well that for nearly fifty years she has scrupulously avoided engaging in controversial political issues. He knows perfectly well that she cannot come to this House to set the record straight. His behaviour is a disgrace and a scandal. Mr President, I am proud to be British but today I am ashamed to share my nationality with that man. Has he no shame? Has he no respect? Has he no decency or honour at all? Miller Mr President, well, how can I respond to such an attack as that? When I raised the point on Monday, and on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, I asked Mr Helmer for his comments on the euro. So far, he has refused to comment. Can I also say that when Mrs Fontaine spoke to Her Majesty the Queen and obviously put certain questions to her the Queen, in her response, was representing her government, which is a Labour Government. That might not suit Mr Helmer, but I am sorry to say that is the way it goes. Can I also say yes, I am Scottish, yes, I am British, but, Mr Helmer, I am European as well and proud to be. Seguro Mr President, I wish to use this point of order to speak in my capacity as chairman of the delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico. As you will be aware, elections were held in Mexico last Sunday. Yesterday the delegation which I chair met and discussed a report drawn up by our fellow Members who had been to Mexico to act as observers at these elections on behalf of this Parliament. We finally approved a three-point statement. The first point was to recognise and welcome the dignified and civic-minded conduct of our Mexican friends during these elections. Secondly, we welcomed the election of Mr Fox and expressed our hope that relations between the European Union and Mexico would continue to make progress under the general agreement approved and ratified in March. Thirdly, we wished to congratulate President Zedillo on having enabled Mexican institutions to make this change to democracy. Mr President, I would ask you to see if the President of this Parliament could forward our resolution, the complete text of which you will receive today, to the Mexican authorities. President Very well, Mr Seguro. I will certainly inform President Fontaine. Lehne Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to draw your attention to something really annoying in connection with the Minutes. The "Texts Adopted" also form part of the Minutes. I pointed out yesterday during the vote on the directive to combat money laundering the English translation of Article 6(3) needs to be corrected to bring it in line with Amendment No 26, because the English translation is wrong. In the middle of the second paragraph of the English version there is only a reference to representation in legal proceedings, but no reference to legal consultants, as there is in the German text. That is a key point in this directive and since the Council working group is working on the basis of the English text it is quite crucial to correct this text. I had already complained about this in committee vis à vis the language services. At the time the committee decided not to table an amendment because the German text is the original version, as drafted by the rapporteur. I complained about this yesterday - the situation was not remedied - and today is the third time I am complaining about it! I do think the services of this House should work more carefully on such key questions and it really is intolerable that despite my criticism yesterday the Minutes have got the text wrong again! I would ask you get to the bottom of this matter, to sort out this most important aspect of the directive and to please correct this in the English translation! President Certainly, Mr Lehne. You gave ample clarification of the matter yesterday. We will certainly ensure that the necessary correction is made. Zimmerling Mr President, yesterday we received a communication on yellow paper from the vice-president, with some nuts attached to it. This note was about supporting the export of products from Vanuatu, a developing country in the Pacific. I think that is a very good idea and quite right. And I am quite happy to support it. But what rather puzzles me is that in it the vice-president quite explicitly stated that it is illegal to import these nuts into the European Union. So I must ask this vice-president to explain how these nuts came to be illegally imported, since it was he who delivered them to us! That in itself is a contradiction so would he please clarify the matter. (Laughter and applause) (The Minutes were approved) Welcome President Ladies and gentlemen, I have the great pleasure of welcoming the members of the delegation from the Swiss Federal Assembly, led by their speaker, Mr Marcel Sandoz, now seated in the official gallery. The members of the delegation have come to Strasbourg to meet their European Parliament peers on the occasion of the 19th EU-Switzerland Interparliamentary Conference. The meetings commenced yesterday and will continue throughout today. The agenda includes the bilateral agreements between the European Parliament and Switzerland, the future development of the Swiss integration policy, the likely results of the European Union Intergovernmental Conference and the enlargement process of the European Union. On behalf of all the Members of the European Parliament, I hope that the meetings will be profitable for the delegation and I wish them a pleasant stay in this beautiful town of Strasbourg. Committee on Petitions - European Ombudsman President The next item is the joint debate on the following reports, tabled on behalf of the Committee on Petitions: (A5-0162/2000) by Mrs Lambert, on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the parliamentary year 1999-2000; (A5-0181/2000) by Mrs Thors, on the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 1999. Söderman Mr President, I am glad to have the opportunity to address the European Parliament concerning the results of my work as European Ombudsman in the year 1999. The Annual Report for 1999 covers the last year of the first mandate of the European Ombudsman. Last year the Ombudsman's office received 1,577 new complaints compared to 1,372 in 1998, an increase of nearly 15%. The number of inquiries opened rose from 171 in 1998 to 206 in 1999, an increase of over 20%. As well as becoming better known, the European Ombudsman is also attracting a higher proportion of serious complaints which require full investigation. You may be interested to know that the same trend has continued to the present year. During the first six months of this year, the number of new inquiries rose by 32% over the same period in 1999. Inquiries are the most resource-intensive aspect of the Ombudsman's work. It is therefore a great challenge to deal with this increase, whilst maintaining the quality of our work and meeting our target of closing most inquiries within one year. I do hope that the European Parliament will support the Ombudsman in seeking the resources needed to carry out the work effectively. During 1999, we continued to receive a quite high proportion of complaints, over 70%, which lay outside the mandate of the European Ombudsman. The proportion of the complaints outside the mandate even increased slightly, probably because we received a growing number of complaints by e-mail. We gladly accept complaints by e-mail and many of them contain well - presented allegations of maladministration. However in all, more of the e-mail complaints are directed against authorities of Member States. During the campaign for the election of a European Ombudsman last year, some critical voices suggested that the Ombudsman's mandate should be broadened to include complaints against Member States in cases where a question of European Union law is involved. I am not sure whether they understood that this would mean the European Ombudsman carrying out tasks currently belonging to the European Commission as the guardian of the Treaty, and to the European Parliament as the democratic forum to which citizens may address petitions. We study carefully all the complaints we receive, especially if they involve rights under European Union law. In 1999, we managed to advise the complainant, or transfer the complaint to a competent body, in about half of the cases. Of these, we transferred 71 cases to the European Parliament to be dealt with as petitions and advised a further 142 complainants of their rights to petition the European Parliament. In many cases, complaints against national, regional or local authorities could be dealt with effectively by an Ombudsman in the Member States concerned. In every Member State there should be a non-judicial body which can assist European citizens in conflicts with Member States' administration concerning their rights under European Union law. As a believer in subsidiarity, I remain convinced that the most effective way to achieve this result is through the development of a network of cooperation with these Ombudsmen as similar bodies such as petitions committees. We organised jointly with the French Ombudsman, Mr Stasi, a seminar for national Ombudsmen and similar bodies. In Paris in September 1999, Mr Perry, the first vice-chairman of the Committee on Petitions, represented the European Parliament. A further seminar is planned to take place in Brussels under the Belgian presidency of the Council in the year 2001 in cooperation with the Commission and with Belgium federal and regional ombudsmen. The regional Ombudsmen and similar bodies were invited to a meeting in Florence last year in which Mr Gemelli, the chairman of the Committee on Petitions, also attended. The regional Ombudsmen and similar bodies will also be invited to Brussels next year. The Ombudsmen and similar bodies in the Member States have shown a positive attitude towards cooperation with the European Ombudsman. I strongly believe that cooperation with them on equal terms will achieve the best results for European citizens. At the beginning, great doubts were expressed as to whether the European Ombudsman had sufficient powers to achieve anything for the citizen. These doubts were unjustified because the Community's institutions and bodies have responded properly to the Ombudsman's work. Since the beginning, they have themselves settled the complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant in over 180 cases. For example, they have replied to unanswered letters, made payments that are due and reversed previous unfavourable decisions. This indicates a spirit of responsiveness and flexibility superior to those national administrations of which I have experience. Sixty-two of these settlements occurred last year, reducing the scope for friendly solutions to be proposed by the Ombudsman. However, we did achieve one friendly solution in 1999 in a case where the Commission and the Council agreed that the complainant should be paid the amount due him for his work as a European Union regional coordinator monitoring the Palestinian elections. If the institution or body concerned will not correct the maladministration itself, the Ombudsman's ultimate weapon is to draft a recommendation followed, if necessary, by a special report to European Parliament. Five years ago, there were many people who said that the Community institutions and bodies did not pay much heed to European Parliament. Even if they might have been right then, things have clearly changed since the Treaty of Amsterdam and the fall of the Santer Commission. In 1999 we made ten draft recommendations. In seven cases the institution concerned has accepted a draft recommendation. In two cases the Ombudsman has made a special report to the European Parliament. One case remains ongoing, since Europol needs more time to comply with the draft recommendation that it should approve some public access to documents. I believe that the European Ombudsman's activities have reached the level that one has the right to expect of a body which is new and consists of 25 persons working in a fairly complex legal environment. We are achieving results for European citizens, and this is what matters above all. I would like to use this opportunity to thank all the Community institutions and bodies for another year of constructive cooperation. I would especially like to address the Commission and its responsible Member, Mrs Loyola de Palacio, and thank her for continuing her predecessor's commitment to an honest and constructive attitude towards cooperation with the Ombudsman. I would also like to express my warm appreciation for the helpful and cooperative attitude towards the Ombudsman's office shown by the Committee on Petitions and especially its vice-chairman, Mr Gemelli, and also thank the rapporteur for the Committee on Petitions Mrs Thors, for her important work on her comprehensive report. Thank you for your attention. Lambert Mr President, the report that I am presenting this morning is effectively a dual report which reflects the work of the committee itself and the work of the office of Parliament's Mediator for Transnationally Abducted Children, Mrs Banotti. I should also like to express my personal appreciation of the work of Mr Söderman, the Ombudsman. I should also like to thank the secretariat of the committee not least for the statistical break-down which is provided there which, I must confess, is not my own work. I would urge Members who are not familiar with the Committee on Petitions to read these reports. It might well be of use to them in providing a service for the people they represent. I would also draw their attention to the website mentioned, set up under the Europe Direct initiative, which could provide useful information and possibly avoid the need for a petition or indeed confirm it as an appropriate vehicle. There is a growing need for such information as people become more aware of the importance and relevance of the European Union level. The aim of the Committee on Petitions itself is to provide a good and effective service for individuals within the European Union and for civil society generally. Any individual, citizen, resident or group may petition Parliament if they feel that Community law or principles are not being properly applied at whatever level. Last year we received 958 petitions of which 492 were considered admissible. I will mention just two of them to demonstrate the range of the topics and the potential effectiveness of the mechanism. We had one British petitioner who succeeded in getting her years of teaching experience recognised by the French authorities, presumably affecting her salary and promotion prospects. In another case a petition from a Spanish citizen, acting for an environmental association resulted in infringement proceedings being brought against the Spanish authorities in relation to the Habitats Directive, a frequent cause of complaint - the directive, not the authorities - with lasting national effect. It is such cases which provide valuable feedback to the European Parliament and the other institutions as to how our legislation works to the benefit of the individuals and society, or not, as the case may be. We could not do our work effectively on this committee without the support of numerous Commission officials who investigate cases and instigate proceedings where necessary. I wish to express our thanks. We know we could provide a more rapid and effective service if Member States could provide an equally committed response in replying to requests for information and explanation. In one case we are currently dealing with it has taken 14 months to get a reply to a letter. That is not unusual. That is why we are recommending that the Council or relevant permanent representation should also be represented at our meetings so that they develop a greater understanding of the problems citizens face and respond effectively. I would draw the Council's attention to points 8 and 10 of the report - if it was here. The aim of the committee is to improve the overall quality of our feedback mechanisms. Some of our ideas are mentioned in this report. Others will appear in a further report in September from Mr Perry and Mrs Keßler. We are proposing, as we did last year, a database mechanism so that petitioners and Members can track the progress of reports and see where the problems lie. We trust that the relevant authorities will bear this in mind this year and act on the proposal. There are various points concerning our relations with other committees. We would ask them to call on the Committee on Petitions more often to express an opinion on certain areas where concern has arisen. We would like to be involved in preparing joint reports on areas of particular concern such as the environment, social security, consumer protection and so on. We would also wish to use the experience of our committee members through their work on other committees of Parliament to institute a rapporteur-style system for specific topics. We are also keen to establish links with petitions committees in other Member States, with a view to exchanging good ideas and understanding. We consider as a committee that petitions are a valuable and empowering tool for democracy in what can often feel like a remote and anonymous institution. We need to value this mechanism and use the experience of the people we represent, as expressed through their petitions to improve our work as a whole. I commend the report to the House. Thors Mr President, Commissioner and Mr Söderman, the rapporteur' s and the committee' s understanding of the Ombudsman' s report for 1999 - the year characterised by crises within the EU institutions and by an immense distrust of the administration - is that the citizens will only view European integration as legitimate if they have rights that mean they can actively participate in a political dialogue with the institutions. The political dialogue is not, however, a real dialogue if the citizens do not have the right to receive information and to have access to the documents that they ask for and if the opinions they express are not paid attention to, discussed or taken seriously. What has all this got to do with the Ombudsman' s task? The Ombudsman' s task is, of course, according to the Treaty, to investigate cases of maladministration within the Community institutions and within the public bodies. At the request of the European Parliament, the Ombudsman gave a definition of the term "maladministration" in the annual report for 1997. These cases occur when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle that is binding upon it. During the Ombudsman' s last period of office, the institutions agreed to apply this definition, and it is now, and will be in the future, the basis for the Ombudsman' s activity. In the report, the committee stresses that this jointly approved definition of "maladministration" also involves the right to inspect how the institutions have interpreted Community law. Irrespective of the legal form the Charter of Fundamental Rights will take, it will, in any case, be an expression of the Member States' common constitutional traditions which, in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty, shall be respected by the Union and therefore also by the institutions and public bodies. The committee observes, therefore, that the Ombudsman ought to play an important part in implementing a future charter of citizens' rights. The committee has also expressed its clear support for the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights ought to contain rules which give citizens the right to expect good administration within the EU. "Good administration" is the opposite of "maladministration" . The right to good administration, both with respect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour which Parliament and the Ombudsman have sought, should at least contain: the right to have one' s case heard, the right to inspect documents, the right to prompt answers from the administration and the right to receive replies supported by reasons. All these aspects have been central to the Ombudsman' s work. These rights are prerequisites for the active citizenship that is necessary if the EU is to regain the confidence of its citizens. It is these rights that make citizenship active instead of passive. Good administration can create conditions for active citizenship, whereas maladministration can undermine these conditions. What are the most common complaints to the Ombudsman and into which categories do they fall? Incomplete or refused information, delays that could have been avoided, discrimination, lack of the right to defence. Citizens want to see good administration. They want to be active citizens. These conclusions can be drawn from the ever increasing number of complaints to the Ombudsman and from the nature of these complaints. The Ombudsman has become renowned for his work for the wider public. This is something he should receive a lot of praise for. An investigation that he completed a few years ago resulted in most of the Community' s institutions and public bodies currently having legislation that allows the public to have access to documents. He has tirelessly continued the work for real transparency and for its no longer being possible for data secrecy and personal protection to be used to prevent the public' s scrutiny of the activities of the authorities. Step by step, the Ombudsman has developed his work, endeavoured to obtain better administration and gained the trust of the citizens. His cooperation with the national ombudsmen is also important, as will be his future cooperation with the corresponding bodies in the candidate countries. This is substantial work that Parliament has reason to support. It ought to do this by making sufficient financial resources available to the Ombudsman so that he can carry out the necessary investigations which the mandate requires. We should in the future also make sure that we support an Ombudsman who is independent in his decision making. I would like to address a big thank you to the Ombudsman and his office, as well as to the secretariat at the Committee on Petitions which, as we know, is currently working under difficult conditions. Mayer, Hans-Peter Mr President, the European Parliament' s Committee on Petitions is a very special body. It receives complaints from citizens, as the two previous speakers rightly said, who believe their rights as EU citizens have been restricted. As draftsman of an opinion on the right of residence, I would like to make a few comments on the specific problems in this area. The free movement of persons is one of the basic freedoms achieved through European integration. Since the Maastricht Treaty there is a general right of residence, provided the individual concerned has adequate means of subsistence and adequate health insurance protection. Freedom of movement and right of residence can be restricted only for reasons of law and order, security or health. Experience has shown the Committee on Petitions that in practice the right to freedom of movement comes up against a great many problems because: (a) Member State authorities are slow to transpose the rules of Community law, (b) problems arise with the recognition of diplomas and qualifications in the case of specific professions, (c) the rules on social security have not been standardised, e.g. complicated forms for the refund of medical costs. An analysis of Treaty infringement proceedings between 1996 and 1999 shows that in 97 cases there was a direct link between the petition and the Treaty infringement proceedings before the European Court of Justice. Unfortunately, the Council often ignores the communications from the Committee on Petitions about serious violations of Community law by Member State authorities. That reflects a negative attitude towards the European citizens' right of petition. In future the Council should devote the necessary attention to the rights of EU citizens. Keßler Mr President, the right to petition and to complain is not some recent invention. Even 2000 years ago petitioners could put their concerns before the Roman emperor. But this right was always in danger of being changed, restricted or abolished. Yesterday' s petitioners have become today' s responsible European citizens. No administration or institution is infallible. Many petitions point to a discrepancy between the legal provisions and European integration. So petitions are a gauge for the relations between the citizens and the legislator and there are many levels of petitions. A population of hamsters in an industrial area is of just as much concern to us as the ban on silicon implants or the introduction of a heavy goods tax. I turn now to the Ombudsman. My group congratulates the Ombudsman on the work he accomplished in 1999. It was, and is, to Mr Söderman' s credit that he has done so much to create greater transparency and openness within the European administrations. Since most of the complaints in the Ombudsman' s remit relate to the European Commission and concern a lack of transparency, work needs to be done to improve this situation. That includes access to documents, not only for the citizens of Europe but also for the Ombudsman. New office technologies cannot be used as grounds for the lack of transparency either. Comprehensible, substantiated replies to the citizens create trust, the opposite gives rise to distrust and a rising number of complaints that need to be dealt with, which therefore in turn creates costs. The Ombudsman' s proposal for a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour is particularly welcome. The citizens have a basic right to an open and responsible administration geared to providing services, since after all it is paid for out of their taxes. In my view it is most important for the European Ombudsman to play an independent role, which can serve as an example for the introduction of national ombudsmen in the candidate countries and in my Land of Thüringen. Malmström Mr President, Mr Söderman, we in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, and myself personally, are proud that our Ombudsman is courageous, enterprising and able to act. It is extremely important that we have someone with such integrity who has dared to stand up for openness and transparency and against the culture of underhandedness, secrecy and, unfortunately in certain cases, of cheating and corruption, which also exists in the European institutions. Only an open and public administration can win support among those who are working here amongst the politicians and among the citizens whom we represent. The line the Ombudsman is pursuing has a lot of support amongst the citizens of all Member States. It is an indisputable fact, and there are several international scientific reports to prove it, that there is a crystal-clear connection between a high level of openness and transparency in the administration and a low level of corruption. The opposite is also true: a closed and secretive administration tends to foster a higher level of corruption. That is, of course, also true in the European institutions. That is why it is so important for us to have a completely independent ombudsman who can act independently and without being subject to any lobbying whatsoever or to interested parties attempting to influence him. The increasing proportion of complaints coming from citizens also points to the need for our Ombudsman, who really acts in the interests of the citizens. The only criticism that can be directed at the Ombudsman is probably that, unfortunately, the institution is still far too little known in many Member States and that far too few citizens are aware of this right. This is probably something which I would like to see concentrated on in the future. To summarise, the Ombudsman fulfils a very important function. I would like to congratulate him on the work he has carried out during the year and wish him luck in the future. Hautala Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Söderman, it may be well to remember that just a year and a half ago there was a debate in this Chamber over whether we needed a Committee on Petitions in general. I am very pleased to be able to say that the Committee on Petitions has again shown its indispensability, especially at a time like this, when we wish to enhance the status of the ordinary citizen in the European Union. I genuinely hope that the Commission on Petitions succeeds in establishing good levels of co-operation with the other committees in the coming year. I believe that we will be able to draft joint reports on the most important problem areas. With regard to the Ombudsman, he has truly established his position and independence. The growing number of grievances is an indication that the public have found him, and we members of the European Parliament have often been able to guide people in his direction to have their problems solved. Public access to documents is an issue that will occupy us in the future, and we have already had some valuable advice on the matter from the Ombudsman. González Álvarez Mr President, in one minute one cannot say much, so I am going to take this opportunity to summarise. Firstly, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Lambert, for taking up all our proposals in the debate. There are therefore not even any amendments. Secondly, I wish to say that at this stage nobody doubts that the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman make an extremely important contribution to compliance with Community law. We see this every day in the Committee on Petitions. Like Mrs Hautala, I am therefore very happy that the Committee on Petitions has survived the attempts to remove it, since, as well as demanding compliance with Community law, it is the committee which is closest to the citizens. It is the committee which makes the institutions most visible to the citizens. The greatest problem is probably the long procedure which follows a complaint by a citizen. The citizen has to study Community law in order to present a petition, and then any response is delayed month after month. The most important petitions deal with social and environmental issues, which are the matters of most concern. On some occasions, Mr President - and I will end here - when a complaint involves the eviction of a citizen or the destruction of a natural area, the response arrives when it is too late to deal with the matter. The speeding up of the process is therefore an important issue which has been taken up by Mrs Lambert. Turco Mr President, the Radical Members of the Bonino List will support the two reports, and they value and support the work of the Ombudsman. However, we would like to ask the Ombudsman a very specific question regarding the fact that it is still not possible for complaints to be signed electronically. In our opinion, this issue is relevant to all the institutions, having a bearing on Parliament's own work as well. However, in particular, precisely because the Ombudsman wishes there to be as much focus as possible on his work, we feel that the possibility for the Ombudsman to attach an electronic signature could be the first step towards introducing the use of this vehicle within the institutions. I would just like to comment on an important statement which has not received due attention. Seventy-seven per cent of complaints received concern the Commission. The Ombudsman has told us that the Commission has made no progress this year in the area of transparency. Transparency is an effective weapon against fraud and corruption. In particular, on 7 December last, President Prodi undertook to find and propose legal and organisational solutions to give both internal and external candidates to Commission competitions access to their examination papers. Would the Ombudsman please inform us, in the same way that he has informed us that Europol needs more time to comply with the recommendation, whether the commitment made by President Prodi on 7 December to making papers available by 1 July 2000 has already been implemented or not. Raschhofer Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I gather from the Ombudsman' s Annual Report that, as we have now heard, the main complaint of the citizens is about lack of transparency. But it appears that not everyone concerned is aware of this problem. The Commission has submitted a proposal for a regulation on public access to documents which you, Mr Söderman, rightly criticised in public as not going far enough. Indeed there has been quite a lot written on the subject. The spirit underlying this proposal can be gauged from the statement by the Advisory Committee of Independent Experts. According to the experts' second report, like all political institutions the Commission needs room to consider, to formulate policy before it becomes public, because policy that is made directly before the public eye is often bad policy. As a representative of the European public, I find this approach to questions of transparency and of policy-making in general unacceptable. So I firmly support Mr Södermann' s justified criticism! Perry Mr President, I would like to add my congratulations and thanks to the Ombudsman for the report which he has presented this year and also to Mrs Thors and Mrs Lambert for their reports to the Parliament. All these reports, particularly that of the Ombudsman, show the very reliable, dependable work that has been done over the year. The European citizens undoubtedly need somebody to whom they can turn if they have problems with the administration and in Mr Söderman I know that we have an Ombudsman upon whom we can depend. I saw that at first hand when I attended the seminar in Paris. It was very good to see the respect in which the European Ombudsman is held by his colleagues, the national ombudsmen. On this side of the House we certainly believe the Ombudsman should have all the powers that he needs to discharge his responsibilities. On access to documents, we happen to think that the views of the Constitutional Affairs Committee are important, but that should not be taken to mean that we have any doubts at all about the principle that the Ombudsman must have access to documents. In that he has our full support. It is surprising that last year the Petitions Committee was at some risk and the report by Mrs Lambert shows the very good work that has been down by the Petitions Committee. With our chairman Mr Gemelli we are now looking at ways of making the Petitions Committee more effective and more efficient in the work it does on behalf of citizens. One of the important things that we will be bringing forward to the Parliament is a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. It is important that citizens and the officials of the institutions know what is reasonable behaviour so that all have a standard to which they can refer. I would also like to thank the Commission for the support we have received in the Petitions Committee. That has been very good and very effective through the year. I hope under the French Presidency we will get the same support from the Council but that unfortunately has been lacking in the past. Êoukiadis Mr President, I should like to start by congratulating the two rapporteurs on their interesting comments. With its ever widening circle of activities, covering a broad range of citizens' interests, the European Union is turning into a modern Leviathan, complete with the inevitable high-handedness which accompanies every administrative mechanism; from certain points of view, it is becoming even more dangerous than the equivalent national government services. That is because control mechanisms have not kept pace with the increase in activities. There are three ways of blocking the dangers which result from this extensive administrative mechanism in the European Union. The first is to have more direct and more frequent involvement by European Parliament in controlling the individual activities of the institutions of the European Union. The proposal by the rapporteur, Mrs Thors, that the Commission include a section on reports and complaints in the annual report on Community law and the proposed organisational agreement making it easier for complaints to be examined quickly need to be followed up here. If the tenet of these proposals is extrapolated, the suggestion is that the European Parliament should, in the future, devote more time to these matters, which are equally important if it is to enhance its status and its right to aspire to codecision with the Council. In more general terms, it is time to see parliamentary control exercised on a different footing. The second way is to introduce the European Charter of Fundamental Rights as a binding charter guaranteeing European citizens immediate rights, both adjectival and substantive, which protect their interests fairly and which convert to the right to compensation in the event that their interests are attacked. The increasingly likely prospect of a Charter which amounts to no more than a declaration will obviously damage the credibility of the European Union which, while abundantly eloquent on the importance of transparency in the operation of its institutions as a basic policy objective and accessibility to European citizens as a basic factor in achieving it, shies from recognising the rudimentary mechanism needed in order to achieve these objectives. The third way is to strengthen and improve the role of the ombudsman, mainly by giving him easier access to all the documents needed in order to conduct an efficient investigation. At the same time, the wealth of material in his report should be closely studied and taken as the starting point for the changes which need to be made to the modus operandi of the Community institutions. I wish the ombudsman courage and good luck for the future. Gemelli Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the European Ombudsman, Mr Söderman, the two rapporteurs, Mrs Lambert and Mrs Thors, all the members of the Committee on Petitions and the Secretariat. We started from the premise that the purpose of the institutions is to serve the citizens and that, therefore, any breach of the citizens' rights will lead to a loss of confidence in the institutions. We are currently required to create a complex, comprehensive, harmonious, functional legal framework, and we must therefore also create judicial mechanisms such as the Charter on Rights, a body of law establishing criminal, civil and administrative law, the agreement procedures for the mutual recognition of judgments passed by Member States, Europol and the sectoral agreements, the establishment of the European Fraud Investigation Office as a tool for investigating abuse of the law, the likely institution of the office of European Public Prosecutor which should be the investigating office of the Court of Justice, the separation of the careers of judges responsible for giving rulings and investigating magistrates, and the separation of criminal, civil and administrative responsibilities: all these are instruments which advance the progress of the European Union. Yesterday's framework agreement is a milestone in this sense. Finally, we would like to request that, in a similar way to Parliament in the codecision procedure, the Committee on Petitions may be permitted to present its own justification for certain decisions, and we call for amendment of the Treaties in order to streamline the entire legal system and existing legislation. Paasilinna Mr President, Mr Söderman, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their hard, thorough and excellent work. The Ombudsman controls power and solves disputes between those who hold power and those over whom power is exercised, and last year there were almost two thousand such cases. I would like to state seven principles. The bigger a union is, the greater the need for transparency. The newer it is the greater this need is, and the more complex it is, the greater the need for better transparency. The more oriented it is towards the information society, the more open it has to be, and the more civilised it is the more public it must be. The more multi-cultural it is the greater the transparency, and the more democratic it is the more open it likewise is. We are used to reading instructions for use with all equipment, down to how to use the whisk in the kitchen. The principles of good administration, which have been worthily established by the Ombudsman, are our citizens' instructions for use with regard to Eurobureaucracy. And, goodness me, these instructions certainly are necessary! There is no democracy without good administration, and that is why the Union Charter must contain the principles of good administration. I would like to make one more important point. Public access to documents in the information society and the principles concerning them must be upgraded in line with the new technology; in other words, a grievance must be able to be made over the Internet and precedents and associated documents must be available in real time. My suggestion is that we need an Ombudsman' s portal on the Net. Thank you for your work! Fourtou Mr President, as a member of the Committee on Petitions, I would particularly like to congratulate my fellow Member, Mrs Lambert, on her excellent report and I thank the European Commission for its valuable assistance in handling the petitions we receive. Petitions are a recognised right of European citizens and residents of the European Union, enabling them to take advantage of the rights given to them by the Treaties. Few citizens, however, are aware that they may submit a petition. The files that we handle, moreover, show a lack of understanding of the rights conferred by European citizenship. This, unfortunately, results in 50% of petitions being inadmissible. Admissible petitions usually raise problems with freedom of movement, setting up businesses, social benefits, recognition of diplomas and qualifications and taxation. Furthermore, we are receiving more and more collective petitions concerning subjects relating to the environment, and with the extension of the competence of the European Union, it is conceivable that the number of such petitions and the number of areas handled will increase. In order to respond to citizens' expectations, adequate coordination between the Committee on Petitions, the European institutions and national authorities is essential. Greater account must also be taken by the other parliamentary committees of the work carried out by our committee. The chronic absence of the Council from our committee meetings is detrimental to the correct handling of petitions. Indeed, the national authorities are the first to apply Community law and it is indispensable for them to work in coordination with the European institutions, and in particular Parliament and the Commission. We are currently waiting too long for responses from the national authorities, sometimes even several years. We are fully aware of the extent of this task and the difficulties to be overcome. First of all, it cannot be denied that this committee is not very well known, although its work is indispensable in strengthening the link between citizens and the European Union. Furthermore, the structures and means of this committee must be strengthened in order to make it more effective, and a closer relationship with the petitions committees of the national authorities would be desirable. Finally, one of the strong points of the French Presidency' s programme is a Europe that is closer to the citizens. The work of our committee falls within this sphere and it is up to us to make this expectation a reality. De Rossa Mr President, I want to welcome Mr Söderman this morning and to congratulate Mrs Lambert and Mrs Thors for their reports. The reality of our society is that if governments and administrations had their way they would never appoint Petitions Committees or Ombudsmen. By nature they tend to be secretive. They are only there because the citizens and their public representatives demand them and defend them when they are there. Therefore, it is important that we continue to demand that the Ombudsman's office and the Petitions Committee of Parliament are adequately resourced. One way of choking off the effectiveness of the Ombudsman's office and the Petitions Committee is to deny them adequate resources. In Parliament it is disgraceful that the Petitions Committee, the single most important direct contact that the citizen has with this institution and with the other institutions of the European Union, is treated the way it is treated. It does not have adequate secretarial assistance. It is treated abominably in relation to translations, which are down at the bottom of the list. It is simply not good enough. I would appeal to the Commission and to the Council if they were here - they ignore the Petitions Committee, as well as ignoring Parliament - to give the resources that are necessary for these bodies to do their job. The Petitions Committee in particular is an important mechanism of access for the people of Europe. It is important that we ensure that it can do its work effectively. The two most important issues that come before the Petitions Committee are the recognition of people's qualifications to work in other Member States and the environmental impact of construction development. In particular, people are concerned that environment impact studies, which are required under EU law, are treated as having no more worth than the paper they are written on. They are either ignored or they do not address the real issues. Sacrédeus Mr President, I would personally like to congratulate Jacob Söderman on the good work he has done, which resulted in his re-election on 27 October last year. At the same time, I would like to praise the Ombudsman for a model annual report which is easy-to-read and, at the same time, comprehensive. It can be seen from the report that it is the Commission that is the subject of the majority of the investigations that have been undertaken, 77 percent to be precise. It should certainly be emphasised that this is mainly due to the fact that the Commission is the institution that makes the most decisions directly affecting citizens. In the report on individual complaints, it emerges, however, that there is insufficient transparency. Insufficient and inadequate information was also the most common cause of complaint. Openness is important if citizens are to be able to have more opportunity to influence how the EU operates and if tendencies to corruption, cheating and fraud are to be checked. I would like to highlight the fact that this report emphasises that all EU institutions and bodies must establish a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. There is a risk, however, which is also evident from the Ombudsman' s annual report, that the significance of such a code would vary considerably from one institution or body to another. The PR side of the Ombudsman' s activities has already been brought up by other speakers and can never be underestimated. I would like to close with some questions: What would be the consequences of a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the Ombudsman' s work? Are there sufficient resources for the work to be carried out well? What are the main reasons for the institutions' shortcomings in relation to the citizens? Is there a lack of will, are the resources insufficient or is there unreasonable bureaucracy which is preventing and delaying the handling of this issue? Iivari Mr President, on the basis of the Ombudsman' s report and that of Mrs Thors, we may say that the institution of the Ombudsman is well established. The Committee acknowledges the work done by Jacob Söderman, and the public too have discovered the Ombudsman. The basic pillars of the work of the Ombudsman are independence and transparency. It is just as pertinent to emphasise the importance of good administration for the public and for the authority of the EU in the eyes of our citizens. It is good that the committee supports the Ombudsman in his efforts to create regulations for good administration. The principle of good administration must also be included in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which is being drafted. From the report it appears that only around 30% of the complaints to the Ombudsman fall within his sphere of responsibility. For that reason there has to be closer cooperation between the Ombudsman and national and regional ombudsmen. De Palacio Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate today, together with Mr Söderman, the Ombudsman, whose work
{'language': 'en'}