EN.doc

Hearing of Mr Vitorino

(The Chairman opened the hearing by explaining to Members the purpose of the meeting. Heoutlined the procedure to be followed and gave the floor to the Commissioner-designate for anintroductory statement).

Vitorino, (EN) Commissioner-Designate. – Thank you, Mr Chairman, I would like to underlinethat it is a great pleasure, honour and responsibility for me to be here once again before the CivilLiberties Committee, and I salute the delegations from the Women’s Committee, the PetitionsCommittee and the Budgetary Control Committee.

Vitorino (PT) – The project for a common area of freedom, security and justice is one of theUnion’s priorities announced unequivocally at Amsterdam. It was said that this area was thejewel in the crown of the Treaty of Amsterdam. It is now up to me and to all of us to demonstratethat it was, is and will continue to be the jewel in the crown of the Union because of its inherentmerits and not just because, in other equally important sectors such as for example institutionalreform, Amsterdam has not made as much progress as is desirable and even necessary.

But let us clarify the starting-point, and the starting-point has to be the philosophical andpolitical basis of the area of freedom, security and justice. My reply is clear, I feel that a charterof fundamental rights of all the inhabitants of the Union is the basis for the area of liberty,security and justice of a constitutional Union based on respect for the primacy of the law anddemocratic legality.

There are three corollaries to this premise which apply to all the components of the area ofliberty, security and justice.

The first corollary is transparency. Access to documents in the spheres covered by this area onthe basis of Article 255 of the Treaty as well as the European Commission’s reform of itsoperational methods, transparency in its decisions and financial management, accountability atthe various levels, starting with my personal political answerability to the European Parliament.

The second corollary is the importance of protecting personal data. A large proportion of theproject for an area for freedom, security and justice depends on the creation of informationnetworks which benefit from technological progress but whose development must respectindividual freedoms and rights, as clearly stated in Article 286 of the Treaty.

The third corollary is the need for balance in the creation of the various components of thearea of freedom, security and justice, stressing the positive dimension of affirming freedomand rights, for which security is a premise and a fundamental instrument. Hence the need tostudy the mechanisms for democratic control, starting with this Parliament, and judicial controlin all the components of the area of liberty, security and justice.

Honourable Members, I propose to take up three challenges: firstly, to respond to the needs ofthe citizens, expressed in many public opinion surveys, according to which security andguaranteed freedom are priorities in their daily lives, with the focus on freedom of movement,social cohesion, respect for diversity, protection against crime, the combating of discrimination,the rejection of racism and xenophobia and the protection of the most vulnerable.

2/30 EN.doc

Secondly, to take up the challenge of the visibility of the area of freedom, security and justice, inorder to make it clear what added value the Union can give to the daily life of citizens. This ofcourse means respecting the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, whilst accepting theneed for a high standard of technical quality in the legislative work to be carried out. And todefine a communication strategy which will make it possible to explain highly technicalinstruments in comprehensible terms which can be understood by ordinary people.

Thirdly and lastly, to respond to the challenge of efficiency in a field which is essentially one ofpolitical development, which means putting the subject of the area of freedom, security andjustice on the agenda for the next Intergovernmental Conference, to simplify its decision-makingmachinery, introduce the codecision mechanism and broaden the powers of the Court of Justicein these spheres.

Where do we want to be five years from now?

In accordance with the Vienna Council’s action plan and the guidelines for the next EuropeanCologne Council in Tampere, we can say, in brief, that we want to achieve the objectives ofAmsterdam, by laying the foundations of the area of freedom, security and justice, strengtheningthe Community component and expanding the number of Member States participating in the areaof freedom, security and justice.

For this reason, I propose that you think about the following priorities:

adopting an action programme to combat all forms of discrimination in daily life, as mentionedin Article 13 of the Treaty;

accomplishing within five years freedom of movement for people at the Community’s internalborders in the light of Community instruments and, in particular, ACTUALLY integrating theSchengen acquis into the Community;

adopting an immigration and asylum policy based on an inter-pillar and multidisciplinaryperspective, with particular reference to policy on visas and long-term residence permits, inparticular in the interests of reuniting families, to lay the foundations for an integration policyincluding the legal status of long-term residents in Union countries, as well as for the adoption ofan asylum policy in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Convention, with particularreference to joint procedures for asylum, the implementation of the EURODAC system and thecommunitarisation of the Dublin Convention;

developing a European judicial area to make judicial decisions more effective in guaranteeingthe rights of individuals, in both civil and criminal proceedings;

fighting against organised crime, corruption and fraud using a combination of instruments thefirst and third pillars and, in particular, using the facilities for police and judicial cooperation,particular emphasis being given to the role of EUROPOL;

adopting a crime-prevention strategy, with particular reference to combating fraud andcorruption, money laundering, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, crimes againstwomen and children and urban and juvenile delinquency;

and, finally, adopting the Action Plan on drugs for the period 2000-2004.

EN.doc 3/30

In order to achieve these objectives, we need close collaboration and, I would stress, real trustbetween Parliament and the Commission. I reaffirm my determination to cooperate closely withParliament, as well as all the commitments I made in the written answers to your questionnaire.

There are two possible ways of reacting to these challenges, either the ‘goalkeeper’s fear of thepenalty’ or a spirit of adventure, such as that felt by explorers going out to find new largelyuncharted territory.

The first of these attitudes leads to depression and paralysis. I suggest the second, which hasbeen pursued by Parliament since 1992 (and, it should be noted, the approach adopted byCommissioner Anita Gradin, who had the honour of being the first Commissioner responsiblefor this area and to whom I would like to pay homage).

Honourable Members, I chose not to speak about personal matters in my introduction. But Ishould like to make it clear that I am perfectly willing to tell you about my past, both the pastwhich promoted me to explain thoroughly in a written answer an episode which was covered inthe media, and my past involvement in the European project which some of you have directknowledge of. But I should not like to conclude without expressing appreciation of thecolleagues – if you will allow me to call you that – who over the last five years, here in theEuropean Parliament, helped to make the area of freedom, security and justice, the future ofwhich we are discussing today, possible.

Because politics today is no longer ‘the art of the possible’. Politics is rather the art of makingwhat is necessary and essential possible. And the area of freedom, security and justice isnecessary and essential for the citizens of the Union.

(Enthusiastic applause)

Coelho (PPE). - (PT) Commissioner-Designate, you know this House well, you are well awareof the importance of the relationship between the Commission and Parliament. I would like toask you whether you agree with an opinion I read somewhere, according to which most of theprogress made in European integration was achieved thanks to an alliance between Parliamentand the Commission, leaving the Council on the sidelines. With this in mind, I should like to askyou whether you are ready to change from a political adversary to an institutional ally?

In the creation of the area of security, freedom and justice, there is, of course, a question ofrecognising the rights of European citizens, which derives from the idea of European citizenship.The question I should like to ask is whether you consider that improved efficiency theeffectiveness of the judicial machinery in the Member States is a by-product of this action andthis objective?

And finally, your written answers include a rather unclear one about limiting your party politicalactivity. What does this mean? Does it mean, for example, that you will turn down any post as anational leader of the Socialist Party elected in Congress?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) Thank you for asking the question. I shall reply,trying to save time, by saying that as regards the role of Parliament and the Commission in theproject for the area of freedom, security and justice, we need to establish a relationship of trust,which does not mean that we should always agree, but that we should not hide our

4/30 EN.doc

disagreements. Above all we have an important point in common, our greatest allies must be thecitizens. Because it is for the sake of the citizens and their demand that the Union should givethem more freedom, security and justice that it makes sense for us to be here and to work for theEuropean project in these areas which – if I am confirmed - will be under my responsibility.

I am convinced that this process of creating an area of freedom, security and justice can help thejudicial systems of the Member States to become more modern. I do not want to dwell on thisissue now, but I should like to tell you that I am firmly convinced that the nature of crime and thethreats against the security of citizens are changing rapidly. And the nature of the judicialinstruments available to the Member States to respond effectively to crime is not adapting asrapidly as it should and as we would like.

It is up to us, in debating the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, to open up newopportunities for changing the national judicial systems to enable them to respond moreeffectively to the new threats, which are sophisticated, have a great deal of money behind themand are increasingly transnational and supranational.

I should like to quote something the Director of EUROPOL said one day, which particularlystruck me: ‘It took the Member States 30 years to realise that drug trafficking was a transnationalphenomenon’. Democracy cannot pay the price of taking 30 years to realise that the new formsof crime are supranational and require transnational responses.

As far as my national political commitments are concerned, I should like to reassure theHonourable Member that I shall scrupulously respect the code of conduct approved by theCommissioners. I shall never renounce my political affiliation, I shall never renounce mypolitical commitment, but I do not have the slightest intention of getting involved in partypolitical disputes in my country.

Kirkhope (PPE). – (EN) If you are to be Justice Commissioner, Mr Vitorino, you need to enjoythe trust of the people, and therefore our trust on behalf of the people. Can we really trust youwhen in your curriculum vitae there is no mention of any party political affiliations as such,whereas we believe that after 1997 you engaged in such activities? Are you still an activeSocialist? What is the nature and extent of your past party political activity? What future partypolitical activity will you actually be engaged in if appointed?

You have said that you believe you were vindicated in relation to a property deal in 1989. We areboth lawyers and former ministers, but you signed a declaration for the Portuguese authoritieswhich would seem to be false. Here is a copy of that declaration. Would you please check it,confirm it shows your signature, and confirm whether or not it was false at the time of itssignature, as I believe to be the case? Mr Vitorino, without trust and honesty, you surely cannotperform the duties expected of you as a Justice Commissioner.

Vitorino, Commissioner-Designate. – (EN) I would like to thank the honourable Members of theHouse for giving me the opportunity to address this issue which I had already included in mywritten answer. In particular because I feel that I provided Parliament with all the relevantdocuments which prove that I have been completely cleared of any kind of accusation of taxevasion, of any kind of false declaration, of any kind of wrongdoing, as far as this issue isconcerned. The Portuguese Attorney-General is quite clear in his conclusions that nothing in myattitude could be considered as an infringement of the law and I must add that I did not hold anypublic office until after both the fiscal administration and the judicial authorities of my country

EN.doc 5/30

had stated quite clearly that I had not acted wrongly. As a matter of fact the conclusion is that Ieven paid more taxes than I should have.

Besides that, as regards the question of probity in public life, there is an answer to thatdeclaration issue by the Portuguese Attorney-General saying that there is nothing in it that can beconsidered an infringement of the law – that’s quite clear. Besides that I think that my attitudeproves the high standard I personally assume in cases in public life. I was not forced to resign, Idecided to resign because I thought then and always will that nobody can use taxpayers’ moneywhen under suspicion of tax evasion. At that time I was managing a budget of 1.7 billion asDefence Minister. I think that if everybody adopted the same attitude that I have adopted,probably in the last few months the Union would not have gone through the difficulties and thecrisis which it has had to.

As far as my socialist affiliations are concerned I can assure you Mr Kirkhope that as you do notdeny being a member of the Conservative Party I do not have to deny being a member of theSocialist Party. But I have already assumed that I will not be involved in party politics in myown country. Allow me to say that if you ask some of your colleagues how I conducted myself inthis Parliament as chairman of this committee you will receive confirmation that I have neverhad a sectarian partisan approach to this common project of freedom, security and justice. I hopeit is a common project.

Wiebenga (ELDR). - (NL) One comment: the integrity of the commissioners-designate isbeyond all doubt to us. My question on behalf of the Liberal Group concerns individual politicalresponsibility. Mr Vitorino, I read in your written replies that you would be prepared to stepdown if you were asked to do so by your President, Mr Prodi, and the other commissioners-designate have generally said the same. My question is this: would you also be prepared to stepdown in the unlikely event of the European Parliament adopting a motion of no confidence inyou, that is to say an individual motion of censure, even if Mr Prodi continues to support you? Inshort, how do you view the phenomenon of individual political responsibility for each memberof the Commission, and yourself in particular, vis-à-vis the European Parliament, in addition tothe collective political responsibility of the Commission as a whole?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) Thank you. I think I answered this question in thewritten questionnaire, saying that it is a legal interpretation which is based on the Commission’scollective accountability vis-à-vis the European Parliament but that the central issue confrontingus is not a problem of legal interpretation. It is a political problem. And I wish to state absolutelyclearly, that according to my personal experience as a former member of this House, in an areasuch as freedom, security and justice it is pointless to promote a policy which does not have thesupport of Parliament, more particularly of the Committee on Civil Liberties.

Moreover, support cannot only be a formality, it must be proactive support, which presupposes arelationship of political trust. And this relationship of political trust also has a personaldimension. I feel confident enough to say that I shall cultivate this relationship of personal trust.And if we are faced with the scenario you outlined – allow me to say this, hypothetically I hope– I shall not fail to be guided by the feasibility of pursuing a policy and if I see that the situationmeans that the policy needed for this area of freedom, security and justice cannot be achieved, Iwill not need a motion of confidence or censure – I will listen to my conscience.

Nevertheless, I must respect the commitment I made to the President of the Commission andsubmit this question to him. But I am confident that we will be able to establish the essential

6/30 EN.doc

relationship of trust in order to ensure that it is not necessary for me to make the response I havejust mentioned.

Cederschiöld (PPE). – (SV) In your written answer you talk of monitoring national legislation,but is this sufficient? We are striving to achieve a high level of security in the Union but does theCommission know what the situation is in the Member States with regard to this? If so, whatcriteria and comparable methods of measurement have been used to establish that level?

Both the committee and Mr Vitorino are agreed that there is a need for greater integration in theinternal security area. This calls for methods of measurement and criteria to enable us to assessthe current situation and future developments. As is the case with the internal market, we needyardsticks to measure how far we have come and where the obstacles are. Mr Vitorino, are youprepared to devise criteria to measure results in the field of law and order?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) Mrs Cederschiöld, one of the great challenges facingme and all of us – if I may say so is to create a Directorate-General in the Commission to dealwith issues coming under the area of freedom, security and justice. I intend to provide thisDirectorate-General with the human resources needed to monitor the development of legislationin the Member States. But I feel that this kind of monitoring, by itself, would be a sign ofpassivity, the attitude of a neutral observer and we, in these matters, cannot be neutral observers.I therefore have a proposal to make, a proposal to think about. It is not a proposal for a decisionbut a proposal to think about and I would like to hear Parliament’s reaction.

I believe that European integration has shown that we have had two extremely productive cyclesof development. The first was the internal market and the second the single currency. What wasthe secret of these cycles? The secret was to have a deadline and clearly identified tasks orconvergence criteria to be fulfilled by each Member State, in order to achieve the objectives. Forthe internal market, there was a list of legal instruments. For the single currency there werequantified convergence criteria. Why not adopt the same system for the area of freedom, securityand justice?

We have a deadline – five years according to the Treaty – we even have two deadlines accordingto the Vienna action plan, an immediate deadline of two years and a second deadline of fiveyears. We now need to identify the ‘scoreboard’ needed to achieve the objective of an area offreedom, security and justice. What I propose is that we try together to define in the light of thepriorities I have set out, what essential elements should be included in this scoreboard to beachieved within five years, by the end of five years.

And, above all, I should like to stress another point – we are not talking about depriving theMember States of sovereign powers, we are talking about exercising sovereign powers jointly.And the method I have just mentioned will allow the Member States, at national level, to makesubstantial progress towards achieving the objective set at Union level. And this objective mustbe based on criteria – convergence criteria for freedom, security and justice. Is it incongruous touse this term?

Cederschiöld (PPE). – (SV) Thank you very much, Mr Vitorino for that excellent answer,which is indeed promising for the future.

This is also an elaboration of questions 1.6 and 1.8, as I would like to persuade Mr Vitorino tomake commitments in this area, which actually came out in the first answer. My next question:

EN.doc 7/30

this is a question of enabling Parliament to assess and evaluate achievements in this area, whichcalls for better interinstitutional cooperation. The committee formally requested previously tohave a representative on the Council’s working parties in the field of internal security. Thiswould facilitate the resolution of political problems and help prevent duplication of work. Areyou prepared, Mr Vitorino, to support these specific demands for representation and scrutiny?What is your view on the practicality of involving Parliament in your daily work at theCommission? In what representative form?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) I am sorry, but I heard a reference to question 6.8,which I cannot identify. Perhaps I have misunderstood ….

(Hesitation on the part of the Commissioner)

So, you mean question 1.8?

In that case, I should like to say two things, firstly the annual debate on the ‘state of the Union’with regard to freedom, security and justice – to use an expression imported from America –must be a proper debate on the state of the Union in the field of freedom, security and justice.And I believe that the Commission and the Council must work together on this exercise, and, inparticular, must adopt an attitude of transparency. It will not help to hide the problems, on thecontrary.

If the real difficulties which are standing in the way of the creation of freedom, security andjustice are identified, this will enable each of us to accept our responsibilities vis-à-vis all thecitizens. And the mechanism I spoke about a little while ago, the ‘scoreboard’, is a goodinstrument for measuring over time the obstacles which tend to persist and those which areovercome by means of dialogue and consultation. It is somewhat embarrassing to recognise thatthere are proposals on a central element of European integration, i.e. freedom of movement,which have been awaiting debate and adoption for six years. It was not an innovation introducedin the Single European Act or Maastricht or Amsterdam. The movement of persons is a projectdating back to 1957 and the Treaty of Rome. It is high time to accept politically the need to putthis element of the European project into practice.

Hence, I reaffirm the undertaking, made in my answer to Question 1.8, to make the annualdebate on freedom, security and justice a progress report, a debate on the state of the Union inthe sphere of freedom, security and justice.

As to the ways of involving Parliament in the Commission’s work, I have three methods topropose and I am willing to discuss any other which may help to achieve the aim.

The first proposal is to submit discussion papers on the most important subjects so that we canassess politically – I know that I am overrunning my time – these discussion papers, meet theCommittee on Civil Liberties to discuss these issues even before the discussion papers aresubmitted and, thirdly make the Commission’s departments available for debate and dialogue onall the subjects which the Honourable Members wish to study with the Commission.

Forgive me, I could go into greater detail but I am running out of time …

Dell’Utri (PPE). – (IT) Mr Vitorino, on 20 March 1997, when the vote was held on the annualreport on respect for human rights, Parliament expressed a very clear position on rights in the

8/30 EN.doc

judicial sphere. I should like to know whether you agree with the opinion expressed byParliament in that report, when it advocates separating the careers of investigating magistratesand judges, stresses the problem of preventive custody as a means of extracting confessions, anddenounces the danger of legislating on the basis of information supplied in the absence ofobjective evidence. On the basis of an analysis of these views can you give us your opinion, inparticular on the problem of the imbalance between defence and prosecution in criminal trialsand on the question of the independence of judges from political power?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) This is a vast issue and I shall try to summarise mythoughts on it. I sincerely believe that the principle of independence of the judiciary is afundamental principle of a democratic and constitutional state, it is an accepted element of ourshared culture and the principle of the independence of the judiciary from political power issafeguarded in various Member States in different ways.

The issue of the separation between the careers of judges and the public prosecution service isdealt with differently depending whether we are talking about Italy, Portugal, France, Germanyor the United Kingdom. I think that at present – I am probably disillusioning you – it is not up tothe Union to lay down guidelines for institutional options in this sphere.

But I am willing to hear any suggestions put forward to assist consideration of this subject.Because the important thing to think about is the following: the very nature of the penal processmust be adapted to match the changes in the nature of criminal activity. And obviously there canbe no democracy nor respect for freedom if the penal process does not guarantee the rights todefence of the accused. And nowadays these rights are often threatened not only by legislativeamendments but above all by changes in the world in which we live.

I will give you an example: the confidentiality of proceedings. The confidentiality ofproceedings, in a world of global communication is under threat – I believe – in all the MemberStates. Often evidence for the prosecutions is published even before the courts have had theopportunity to give a verdict on the subject of a trial.

This means that confidentiality, which is one of the fundamental rules guaranteeing equalitybetween prosecution and defence is now seriously jeopardised. And, I would emphasise, it isused as an instrument to exert pressure and restrict the independence of the judiciary. I believethat our consideration of the creation of a European judicial area obliges us to define prioritycriteria for the harmonisation of national legislation, even in the sphere of criminal proceedings,conditions for preventive custody, for example.

Schulz (PSE). – (DE) As far as the area of freedom, security and justice is concerned, Tampereis an appointment of central importance. As the future Commissioner responsible, you and wetoo are under pressure to act, since there are only a few weeks to go. It is therefore definitelyimportant for this committee to know how you will answer the following question. We have theimpression that this European Council must achieve a breakthrough, achieve substantialcompromises among the Member States in order to bring this area of freedom, security andjustice into being. There is however also the danger of drawing up a ‘shopping list’, with theMember States picking out what they fancy. How do you intend to proceed? What aspects doyou feel to be of priority importance if you have to represent the Commission in Tampere? Howdo you intend to prevent the clear perspectives of the area of security, freedom and justice frombeing watered down by this shopping list?

EN.doc 9/30

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) I acknowledge that the circumstances in which thisCommission is taking up office allow us little time to prepare for the Tampere Summit. AndTampere is the decisive moment for proving the truth of the first comment I made in myintroduction. Was the area of freedom, security and justice the jewel in the crown of the Treatyof Amsterdam or not? It is up to Tampere to decide whether it was or not. I hope it is.

I should just like to speak about three priority issues. I consider that Tampere has to confirmpolitically the European Council’s undertaking concerning the philosophical and political basisof the area of freedom, security and justice, and the drafting of the Charter of FundamentalRights. Tampere must produce clear indications of the timetable, the composition of the relevantbody and the objective of adopting the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Secondly, Tampere must produce clear political guarantees concerning the protection ofcitizens’ rights as regards transparency (envisaged in Article 255 of the Treaty on access todocuments) and regarding the protection of personal data on computer. That is to say the creationof the body envisaged in Article 286 and the need to safeguard and legally control the processingof personal data.

Tampere should also produce a political agreement on the future commitment of the EuropeanCouncil itself in these areas – that which some call a ‘clause rendez-vous’. The EuropeanCouncil should commit itself to periodically dealing with the issue of freedom, security andjustice. And to hold, perhaps once a year, a meeting devoted to analysing the progress achievedin the area of freedom, security and justice.

As to the substantive priorities, I would say that they are: immigration and asylum, crimeprevention and steps towards creating a European judicial area, dealing in particular with aproject by which I set great store, the Eurojust project.

Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr Vitorino, what you say is marvellous. But perhaps you can tell thecommittee how you are going to do all that if you become Commissioner?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) I am very pleased to answer your question, but theanswer will be politically incorrect. I confess to this committee that I am never afraid of defeatwhen I know I am right. And the way I put my ideas into practice is by defending them by meansof a policy based on three words beginning with ‘p’.

Firstly, pragmatism. I do not propose either idealistic or unrealistic objectives. I proposeobjectives which the citizens demand every day.

Secondly, persistence. Persistence means adhering to values. The challenge of creating the areaof freedom, security and justice is to show that we were all acting in good faith at Amsterdamwhen we approved what we approved.

Thirdly, patience. As you know, during my career I spent one and a half years of my lifenegotiating the future of Macau with the People’s Republic of China and if I learnt anythingfrom this experience, it was the virtue of patience.

Chairman. – (EN) Thank you Mr Vitorino. It reminds me of the prayer which goes “Lord giveme the strength to put up with the things I cannot change in life, the courage to change the thingsI can and the wisdom to know the difference”

10/30 EN.doc

Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr Vitorino, I hope for your sake that the Council has heard that youcompare negotiations with it to negotiations with China.

(Laughter)

I thank you for both your answers but I must still ask you another unpleasant question. TheCouncil, if it decides what you said and you put it into practice, even it targets everyday life, hasnot yet touched on an extremely important point, namely acceptance by the population. I believethat the decisive issue for the future acceptance of the whole EU is that the citizens should beable to understand and take on board what comes out of this complex structure of the area offreedom, security and justice. Parliament’s rights and powers of control must also be understoodby the population. I now ask you, how will you try to present to the public the consistency andimportance of the various spheres and arrive at an even balance between Parliament, the Counciland the Commission?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (PT) I believe that the second challenge to which I referredto in my introduction is the challenge of visibility, the visibility of the area of freedom, securityand justice for the citizens. And this challenge is to be tackled by drawing up a communicationstrategy using the technological means available and, above all, by bearing in mind that technicalrigour is needed in the solutions which we adopt, but that technical matters must be madeunderstandable for all the citizens.

Hence, the front-line role of the Members of the European Parliament. Let us not have anyillusions, because you are the representatives of the European citizens who must bring thismessage to all the citizens. It is of course up to the Commission to use the communicationinstruments at its disposal, combined with action on the part of Members of Parliament, in orderto convey to all the citizens the principle ideas underlying the area of freedom, security andjustice.

As regards balance between the institutions, there will obviously be times when I will feel alonein the middle of a bridge. I am aware of this. I can make two commitments here and now.

-Firstly, I shall not hide behind anybody. I know full well that it would be easy because as I amvery short I have the great advantage of being able to hide easily, but I shall not hide behindanybody. Hence, I shall always defend my opinion even if I am defeated;

- The second commitment is that I shall always behave in such a way that, even at the timeswhen I am isolated in the middle of the bridge, I shall continue to stand my ground.

Kessler (PSE). - (DE) I am speaking on behalf of the Committee of Petitions. The right ofpetition is a basic right deriving from Union citizenship.

For me, the Committee on Petitions is the showcase of democracy. The committee is for us theEuropean Parliament body which decisively exercises parliamentary control over the EUinstitutions and national administrations. Mr Vitorino, I would therefore ask you – what stepswill you take to ensure more efficient transposition of Community law in the Member States infuture and how – that is to say in the annual report to Parliament - will you keep Parliamentabreast of problems arising in the transposition of Community law?

EN.doc 11/30

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (PT) Thank you for asking the question. I said earlier thatone of my main concerns in the future structuring of the Directorate-General for the area offreedom, security and justice will be to have the human resources needed to monitor constantlydevelopments in the situation in each of the Member States. I realise that this is an ambitiousaim. I also recognise that it is a necessary one, because without monitoring the developments ineach of the Member States, it will be difficult to draw up a joint strategy for the Union as awhole.

I am perfectly willing to appear before the Committee on Petitions to deal with any actual caseswhich arise and I must say that it is up to the Commission, now that many important issues havebeen communitarised in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to take the necessary steps to respond to theproblems raised by people in petitions. I believe there have been recent examples of this, that isto say proceedings brought against Member States on the basis of petitions addressed to theEuropean Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, which it forwarded to the Commissionsubsequently. This is a useful practice and I intend to continue it.

Paciotti (PSE). – (IT) Mr Vitorino, I read in your answers to Questions 2.1 and 2.2 that youagree with the need to draw up a Charter of Fundamental Rights for European citizens which isnot confined to stating the lowest common denominator of the constitutional traditions of theMember States, but constitutes the expression of a Union based on all the fundamental rightswhich are the shared heritage of Europe. I very much appreciate this position and I wouldtherefore ask you, with reference to the conclusions of the Cologne Summit and in the run-up tothe Tampere Summit: firstly, do you not consider that a Union charter should be drawn up byand under the responsibility of Union bodies rather than the Member States? Secondly, do younot believe that fundamental rights constitute a restriction on the exercise of all powers, inparticular executive powers, and hence that the wording of the Charter should envisage, as themain protagonists, the representatives of the peoples of Europe rather than those who governthem?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (PT) My answer is as follows: Yes, I agree that the Charterof Fundamental Rights must be drafted under the aegis of the Union bodies and, in particular,that the Charter of Fundamental Rights cannot be a lowest common denominator exercise.

It would be inconceivable that 30 years after the European Convention on Human Rights weshould be incapable, in the Union, of adopting a forward-looking Charter of Fundamental Rights.And, when I say ‘forward-looking’, I am not only referring to the social and economic rightswhich must feature in the Charter but also the so-called ‘third and fourth’ generation rights:personal safeguards vis-à-vis data processing, rights concerning the life sciences, geneticengineering and bioethics. We cannot ignore the fact that these are central elements of a valuewhich is the key value of our shared culture – human dignity. And, to this end, I believe that anylowest common denominator exercise would be embarrassing, shameful and unacceptable for theUnion.

Cashman (PSE). – (EN) Mr Vitorino I am sure you will agree that on the issue of anti-discrimination the Council and the Commission has a poor reputation, a reputation which hasbeen compounded by recent statements from Commissioner-designates. There is draft legislationon race on the desk of Commissioner Flynn. Can we please bring that forward and please let usalso remember the other forgotten minorities listed in Article 13 who some Commissioner-designates still want to forget.

12/30 EN.doc

Will you please commit yourself to full horizontal application of Article 13 so that we canprotect all minorities and not just the favourite few. Unfortunately in Britain ethnic minoritiesand homosexuals have this year been bombed and attacked. On Saturday in Britain I witnessed aman who was beaten unconscious because people believed he was gay. When the Commission,the Council and Parliament advance the rights of only some minorities they implicitly condonesuch violations of human rights and civil liberties. Please commit to the equal rights of allminorities across the collegiate.

Vitorino, Commissioner-Designate. – (EN) Thank you so much for your question. I would liketo tell you that in my written answer I have given you a double approach to the issue of the fightagainst racism and xenophobia. I recognise that fighting against racism and xenophobia at theworkplace is a very relevant element. It has some specific features which justify the existence ofa specific directive under the social affairs label. But I feel that the fight against racism andxenophobia is a broader political and cultural question and it should be treated as such in a globalinstrument covering the political and cultural dimensions of racism and xenophobia in the fightagainst them.

I believe that it is up to me to promote such a broader global directive in close cooperation ofcourse with Madame Diamantopoulou who is in charge of Social Affairs. As far as theapplication of Article 13 is concerned, I can guarantee you that my personal approach to life doesnot subscribe to the famous quote from George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All are equal but someare more equal than others”. All are equal and now we have a legal basis on Article 13 to workupon which means that I am ready to discuss with you an action programme on fighting againstdiscrimination in all capacities mentioned in Article 13.

Ludford (ELDR). – (EN) Mr Vitorino, in view of your remarks in your introduction that the artof politics is making the necessary possible, I find and I would like to ask you why you do so –that you subscribe to a rather distinctly unambitious approach to the possibilities of anti-discrimination legislation under Article 13. For instance in not envisaging grounds other thanrace, important as that is, the legislation outside the employment sphere, and in apparentlybelieving that there is no call for action under Article 13 for women at all.

Surely the whole point of Article 13 is to go beyond employment across the whole range ofcategories enumerated and one can think of examples. For instance I will just pick out one –succession rights to property for gay people. And there is the whole area of religion and belief,perhaps particularly affecting Muslims. Surely an action programme alone is not enough – itfrankly makes my heart sink, and it will sink without trace. We need legislative guaranteesacross society not only for women, who are a majority, but also for minorities.

Vitorino, Commissioner-Designate. – (EN) Well I am very much sorry if I have given you thatimpression; it was not my intention. Article 13 is a new legal basis in the Treaty and we have tomake the most of it. I can assure you that is my personal feeling. You have to recognise that inthis moment I am not in a position to give an undertaking on a specific legislative initiative but Iam willing to discuss with the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities and withthe Civil Liberties Committee any proposal in order to prepare legislative action in all areas thatare included in Article 13 - all of them I can assure you.

This is a difficult task as you might imagine. I am not trying to escape from it. I am just trying tobe sincere and honest. When I have a proposal prepared I will present it to you. I have not. I have

EN.doc 13/30

an idea for the adoption of an action programme with a full understanding of the issue - but Ithink there is a new key word in modern life. The new key word is flexibility. So I am preparedto be flexible and will consider with goodwill any concrete suggestion of proceeding withlegislative initiatives in this area. It is a sort of a commitment to a compromise.

Roure (PSE). – (FR) Mr Vitorino, man’s exploitation of man goes back into the mists of time,but we would like Europe to respect every human being. The various states in the Union do notreact in the same way to this exploitation, especially as far as prostitution is concerned.Prostitution is generally not a choice, it is a constituent of misery and there are always peoplewilling to exploit misery in order to get rich and exploit clients.

What measures do you intend to take to combat the exploitation of human beings – men, womenand children – especially in the area of prostitution? Do you intend to endeavour to harmonisethe laws of the Member States governing respect for human beings?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (FR) I believe that there are two aspects to be considered:firstly, the legal instrument for harmonising criminal sanctions against traffic in women, theexploitation of women and crimes against children. I agree with you totally. This is clearly apriority. But we must also devise awareness-raising campaigns, especially in the countries which‘export’ women and are channels of illegal immigration.

I believe that in the programmes under my responsibility, in particular the combination ofexisting programmes with the new Daphne programme, we must adopt practical measures tocombat violence against women, the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, andannounce these measures clearly. It is unreasonable that 15 Member States, which share thesame values as regards human dignity, cannot reach agreement on how to punish these odiouscrimes.

Chairman. – (EN) Thank you, Mr Vitorino. I believe you were chairman of this committee atthe time of the report by Mrs Colombo Svevo in the last Parliament which dealt with that and wewill look forward to pursuing that debate with you with interest.

Marinho (PSE). – (PT) Mr Vitorino, I should like to tackle the issue of the contradictions in thefree movement of persons within the Community, and not only that some Member States haveadopted Schengen, some Member States want to adopt part of Schengen and some Schengenstates are not Member States. I consider that your basic belief is that freedom of movement is avital element in a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the Union. I can see from the text of youranswers and even some of the answers which you have given us today, that you look forwardwith some optimism to the creation of an integrated area of freedom as far as jurisdiction isconcerned. And hence, a real area of free movement. On what do you base your optimism?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) I confess that when I read documents on Schengen Iam reminded of a book by Gabriel Garcia Márquez entitled ‘The General in his Labyrinth’,because Schengen is a veritable labyrinth. I am in favour of the idea of enhanced cooperationand I believe that Schengen is a good example of enhanced cooperation, since it has beenintegrated in the Community acquis. But, at this moment, we must recognise that thecommunitarisation of Schengen did not come up to expectations. And we must give priority toreplacing Article 2 of the Schengen Convention on the basis of the instruments envisaged inArticles 61, 62 and 63 of the EC Treaty. This is the starting point for communitarising Schengen.

14/30 EN.doc

As to the fact that there are Member States which are not part of Schengen, I think it is a positivedevelopment that the United Kingdom has applied to accede to certain parts of Schengen and Ithink that we must encourage the moves the United Kingdom has made in this direction, and thatis a two-way path. We ourselves, in Parliament, used to complain about a degree of reluctance onthe part of Great Britain as regards freedom of movement.

But we too must do our bit, and this means making the Schengen system more credible, provingthat Schengen actually works as far as external border controls, all external border controls areconcerned, that Schengen can be an area of freedom and security, to be achieved for example byadopting decisions on making European passports secure, which I feel to be an importantconfidence-building measure in order to encourage the United Kingdom further, give Irelandconfidence and resolve the Danish question.

Until then, we will remain in the labyrinth.

Palacio Vallelersundi (PPE). – (ES) Mr Vitorino, once again welcome. I noted with enormoussatisfaction your statement that we must make this policy of freedom, security and justice ‘thejewel in the crown’ of European policies. I am sure that all of us in this committee agree withyou and I hope that all of us in Parliament agree.

You used to be a member of the European Parliament. I am sure that you know the De Guchtreport on human rights that it influenced later reports, such as the Oreja report. Do you agreewith the points made in that report and the idea that in certain areas, when there is a solidworking basis, there is not need for invention? Would you be willing to defend the contents ofthis report, if you agree with it, in the forthcoming debate?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (ES) Mrs Palacio, I am glad to answer your questionbecause I have always greatly admired your work in the Committee on Legal Affairs and I seethat you are a substitute member of this committee, which is obviously added value for civilliberties. I used the term ‘jewel in the crown’ but I believe that I should say, in order to avoidproblems in my country and reassure my compatriots, that I am still a Republican because if Idon’t say so, I would have political problems.

As far as the question of human rights is concerned, we cannot pretend to tell the applicantcountries that they must have a high standard for human rights if we ourselves, in our Union, donot respect them with the greatest rigour and determination.

I believe that I am not dramatising when I say this, because we are not inventing the wheel – itwas already invented by the Ancients what we must do is make sure we are able to meet theresponsibilities bequeathed to us by the Ancient World and adapt these responsibilities to thenew dangers hanging over human rights, such as cross-border crime and the threats of anexcessively repressive vision of the fight against crime. The moral advantage of democracy is theability to combat crime whilst respecting human rights.

Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr Vitorino, not least with a view to Tampere, do youintend to promote initiatives to make the Union implement a common action to ensure the rightto legal aid for those, either victims of crime or defendants, who do not have sufficient income,and the right to be sufficiently informed and assisted in the procedures for gaining access to suchaid? This is needed because the prison population of many Member States consists almost totallyof poor people, the unemployed, drug addicts, AIDS sufferers, people from outside the

EN.doc 15/30

Community and similar. European prisons are ample evidence of the racism and discriminationexisting in Europe. For these citizens, or non-citizens, the rule of law is merely an empty phrase.What do you intend to do to remedy this situation?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (PT) I am grateful for your question and I must say that theissue it deals with – as can be seen from my written answers – is a priority concern. Legal aid incriminal proceedings involving the prosecution of a citizen of a Member State in anotherMember State is an essential concern which calls for swift action. And I am in a position to tellyou that not only must the matter be on the agenda for Tampere but that the Commission hasalready carried out significant preparatory work which will help us to act in the near future.

There must be guaranteed access to interpretation to enable defendants to understand the chargesbrought against them. Access to non-discriminatory rules for removing the possible obligation tooffer security to guarantee the payment of legal costs, access to rules granting legal aid and thesupport of a lawyer to defend the rights of the accused and access to rules obliging the MemberStates to treat all accused persons absolutely equally, regardless of their nationality.

There are various possible solutions, technically speaking. I hope to have the opportunity, in thenear future, of meeting the Committee on Civil Liberties to discuss in greater detail thepracticalities of legal aid.

Chairman. – Thank you Mr Vitorino. I do not know how many in this room are underinvestigation but I am not sure where we would be without lawyers or interpreters.

Sylla (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr Vitorino, you have a way with words and you have enthusiasm,which is nice, but you also said something very important just now. You said that the importantthing was to take up the challenge of reconciling the citizens of Europe with politics. I have alittle problem with this. I have had the feeling, since you said that, that you see a summit whichis to take place in a month – the Tampere Summit – as a moment when we will find the HolyGrail. What worries me is that what you referred to earlier as the ‘goalkeeper’s fear of thepenalty’ is rather the fear of the man in the street who has to play basketball against MichaelJordan. I am afraid that disillusionment may set in. Therefore, I think we should be careful howwe present the Tampere Summit.

Secondly, I will be very brief – we must not focus exclusively in this summit on combatingracism and xenophobia, on colloquies, monitoring centres and everything said there, but we mustalso ensure that the issue of equal rights in the economic, social and political spheres is clearlystated.

Three more points briefly. Firstly, the question of immigrants’ voting rights – many immigrantsare now humiliated and despised in European countries because they do not have the right tovote. Secondly, any child born on French soil or any other European country must automaticallyhave the nationality of that country. This is a precondition for integration and I feel that it isimportant. Finally, I feel that legislation against racism must be harmonised, because it is notright that when Jean-Marie Le Pen declares that the gas chambers are a historical detail, heshould be sanctioned more severely in Germany than in his own country.

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (FR) Taking up your simile, I am not saying that Tamperewill lead us to the Holy Grail. I shall be happy enough if Tampere tells us that the Grail actuallyexists and that there are priorities for reaching it. That for me would already be a step forward.

16/30 EN.doc

As regards the rights of citizens of third countries living in Union countries, I have an answer togive you which perhaps constitutes a different approach, but I am willing to hear your reaction. Iconsider that the appropriate document for taking a strategic decision on it is the Charter ofFundamental Rights. When a Charter of Fundamental Rights is being drawn up, we must definewhat the objective application of the Charter is. This means, to what citizens is it addressed?

In my opinion, the Charter must apply not only to the citizens of the Member States of theEuropean Union but also the citizens of third countries who have been living in the Union for along time. It is in this area that a structural decision for the future of our Union must be taken.

Theorin (PSE). – (SV) The Committee on Women’s Rights has asked all the Commissioners-Designate what they will do in practical terms within their sphere of responsibility to promoteequality. We would like more practical initiatives from you.

The committee considers that all women’s issues should be dealt with by one Commissioner butnow you have been given responsibility for violence against and trafficking in women. Are youthen prepared to take practical steps to have violence against and rape of women within marriageclassified as a criminal act in all EU Member States ?

Rape is a gross violation. Rape in war has long been used as a deliberate military action. Warcrimes are clearly defined in the Geneva Protocol where, for example, terror and torture areidentified as war crimes which entail punishment without further interpretation. Rape in war, onthe other hand, is not defined in international law as a war crime. Are you prepared actively toadvocate an addendum to the Second Geneva Protocol, explicitly defining rape as a war crime ?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) I am very pleased to answer the Committee onWomen’s Rights by saying that as far as my sphere of competence is concerned I tried, in mywritten answers, to indicate my priorities for the promotion of equal opportunities. I believe thatthere are a number of instruments under my responsibility which may be useful in this field.

Examples are the STOP programme to combat traffic in human beings, especially the mostvulnerable, including women too, and the new DAPHNE programme contains, in my view,many opportunities which may be exploited in my field of action, aimed at two priority andimmediate objectives. Firstly I believe that debate, discussion and education about combatingviolence against women must be a separate part of the policies for integrating immigrants. Thereis specific action to be developed in the sphere of immigration policy in this sector too; secondly,I believe that we must give priority to involving the applicant countries in these programmes topromote equality between men and women. I am convinced that this is a central element inguaranteeing human rights and that we have the responsibility to develop partnerships with non-governmental organisations in the applicant countries, in order to promote the objective of equalopportunities and the objective of combating violence against women.

With regard to the question of considering rape as a war crime, I do not have the slightesthesitation, as a lawyer, in saying yes to your question. With regard to practical measures, I mustsay that as a Professor of Law I am always extremely embarrassed when I am caught out in atechnical error. And I feel that it is better to confess straight away the technical error. At presentI cannot see which international convention will allow the Union to intervene to guarantee thisobjective. But I hope that the Committee on Women’s Rights will allow me to pass over myignorance on this technical point.

EN.doc 17/30

Theorin (PSE). – (SV) I would just add that I am talking about the Second Geneva protocol, towhich only the word ‘rape’ needs to be added.

Maij-Weggen (PPE). – (NL) Mr Vitorino’s answer was not entirely adequate. I would point outto him that female refugees coming to Europe sometimes have more, and other reasons, forfleeing than male refugees, for instance politically motivated acts of violence such as rape.Consider what happened in Bosnia. I am thinking of the severe restriction of human freedomssuch as is occurring in Afghanistan. I am thinking of forced marriages, such as take place inArab countries and India, where there are even cases of women being burnt if they refuse to goalong with them. Do you agree with us that circumstances of this kind do in fact warrantrecognised refugee status? European legislation often does not take such circumstances intoaccount, and I think the necessary provisions must be added.

My second question is as follows: some female migrants arrive in Europe as single women, butsome arrive as married women. And they sometimes get divorced. There are a number ofEuropean countries that repatriate women migrants when their marriages have ended, despite thefact that these women have in some cases been living there for ten to twenty years, and theirchildren also attend school there. I would also like to know whether anything can be done aboutthis state of affairs, as I consider it to be flagrantly unjust.

Vitorino, Commissioner designate. - (PT) I shall be pleased to answer Mrs Maij-Weggen’squestion. I realise that the issue you have raised concerns the definition of refugees as sanctionedin the Geneva Convention. And I know that there are some criticisms about one area of theinterpretation of refugees which in practice could undermine the definition laid down in theGeneva Convention.

However, I gave a written answer on this subject which for me is absolutely clear and which Iwill reaffirm now. In my view, the correct and appropriate interpretation of the GenevaConvention is that the refugees to whom you have just referred should also benefit from theprotection envisaged in the Geneva Convention. Women who are victims of violence, rape orforced marriage and who flee situations of this kind should also be considered as refugees for thepurposes of the implementation of the Geneva Convention.

As regards the second half of your question, it is obvious that immigrant women residing in theEuropean Union are human beings not merely because they are married to immigrant men, theyare autonomous and must be treated as such. Hence, my reply – although it is not statedexplicitly in the written answers, is absolutely clear: of course these cases must be considered ascases in which the right of permanent residence is recognised, irrespective of whether thesewomen are married or not.

Sörensen (V-ALE). – (NL) Mr Vitorino, I should like to look in greater detail at question 6.2,action to combat the trafficking of women and children. Quite a few things have already beensaid on this subject. You say that you will continue Mrs Gradin’s policies but, in some parts ofyour reply, I cannot detect much commitment. Will you also attend all those congresses that sheattended, with all the women’s groups that deal with these issues?

Secondly, you are the man appointed to lead the fight against the trafficking of women. Do youconsider the fight against the trafficking of women and children to be a fully-fledged part of thefight against organised crime?

18/30 EN.doc

Thirdly, do you know how many women have been the victims of trafficking in Europe thisyear? Do you consider all prostitutes to be victims of such trafficking, no matter what? Or doyou support the granting of rights to prostitutes? Do you draw a distinction here?

Fourthly, do you know which countries already have good legislation on caring for victims?What cooperation will there be between the two Commissions in future?

Vitorino, Commissioner designate. - (PT) First of all, I should like to say that I have greatadmiration for the former Commissioner Mrs Anita Gradin and for her commitment to this issue.Since I am a man, it is a great personal challenge for me to show you that I will be a worthysuccessor to Mrs Gradin in this sector too. This means I must make a priority politicalcommitment to this issue. Allow me to say that I have already given you proof of this – I havealready clearly stated that a priority initiative in my area of competence would be, precisely, theadoption of a Community instrument on traffic in human beings and crimes against children.This Community instrument has an objective, the objective of bringing national legislationscloser together in order to guarantee the best standards of protection for victims of such crimes –traffic in human beings and crimes against children. I cannot tell you the number of victims, Imust admit, but I am sure that before I go the Honourable Member will remedy my ignorance.

What I do know is that the importance of the issue does not depend on the number of victims,because the importance depends on adherence to values. And I do not have the least doubt thateven if there were only one case in the whole Union it should be severely punished to set anexample.

Wieland (PPE). – (DE) European citizens can address petitions and complaints to the EuropeanUnion, the Committee on Petitions, the Commission and also the Ombudsman. Do you feel thatwe need a new interinstitutional agreement setting out the arrangements for and proceduresbetween these three bodies and Union Institutions, in particular making information available inaccordance with a specific timetable, which would also apply to information given by theCommission to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) My personal view on this matter in my sphere ofcompetence is that there will be a person in my cabinet responsible for liaison with Parliament,who will have the specific responsibility of guaranteeing that replies to requests from Membersof Parliament are forwarded within a period of time agreed in the relevant interinstitutionalagreement. I do not have the slightest doubt that the relationship between this Commission andParliament will, in many ways be different from in the past. The President-Designate has alreadysaid that he intends to initiate dialogue with Parliament on revising the form relations betweenthe two institutions take.

I do not want to go into this subject further because it is not under my direct competence, but Ishould like to say that in this area, which is so close to the citizens, I am perfectly aware thatswift answers to people’s requests will guarantee that the area of liberty, security and justice isnot an empty phrase but is perceived by those for whom it is mainly intended. I can assure youthat I shall endeavour to respond to this idea in the best possible way.

Krarup (EDD). – (DA) I have a general question that slightly interrupts this smooth flow ofrhetoric; it concerns freedom, security, and justice, in other words the establishment of acommon legal area. We are of course agreed that it has tremendously wide-ranging implications

EN.doc 19/30

in terms of fundamental rights, the administration of justice, criminal law, foreigners, Schengenin an area which the legal cultures of the individual countries are extraordinarily varied. I have anumber of questions which are very clear. It says in Mr Vitorino’s papers that we must ensurethat the introduction of a common legal area is a definite gain for the Union. What is meant bythis? He talks of the advantages of qualified majority but are the Commission and theCommissioner-Designate aware that effectiveness and practical implementation are somewhat ininverse proportion to each other, as the experience of the internal market shows ? Finally he saysthat there may be sensitive issues involved and I would like to know what the Commissionermeans by that. What is his assessment of the project in relation to the specific Danish position,given that Denmark, as you know, has opted out of the obligation to take part in supranationallegal and police cooperation? How can we secure our various fundamental rights ? They are verydifferent …

(The chairman interrupts the speaker)

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) If I understood your question correctly, it refers tothe specific status of Denmark in connection with the application of Title IV of the EC Treaty. Ifeel that it is a constitutional decision, in that it was taken by the Intergovernmental Conferenceand approved at Amsterdam.

This being so, only after a decision is taken by the Danish Government – which if I understandcorrectly will have to be ratified by a referendum – can Denmark be included in the sphere ofapplication of Title IV. It is up to me to respect the decision set out in the Treaty of Amsterdamand the decision of the government and people of Denmark.

In my humble opinion, it seems obvious that there will be a number of advantages for Denmarkitself if this situation is swiftly remedied. I shall give you an example – if Norway and Icelandare involved in the Schengen agreement it is obvious that, if freedom of movement is to beimplemented fully in the Nordic countries, the fact that Denmark does not belong to Schengenmay create problems.

At present this is the only honest answer I can give you respect for the sovereign decisions of theDanish people as incorporated in the Amsterdam Treaty.

Gutiérrez Cortines (PPE). – (ES) Commissioner-Designate, I should like to congratulate youon attributing importance in your introduction to life-long education and training and to judge bythe tone in which you said it. I suspect it is something that you do with great enthusiasm, as partof an active policy to combat inequality, juvenile delinquency and discrimination.

However, in the Council’s programmes and budget, in actual fact, education, in accordance withthe principle of subsidiarity is still being neglected and, furthermore, the budgets are not beingincreased. Do you not think that with a policy of incentives, we should introduce work andeducation measures to combat discrimination, including the education of immigrants? We givethem a roof over their heads and jobs, but we do not give them education, the instrument ofintegration. We are in a progressive economy and, probably, we will come up against a veryserious problem. What importance would you give to this?Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (ES) I sincerely believe that in integration policy educationand training have a central role to play in combating discrimination, not only in the integrationpolicy for immigrants but in the whole of the Member States’ internal policy, because our wholeframework is changing, we are entering the new framework of a global communication society.

20/30 EN.doc

This means that comparative advantages derive from better preparation in terms of education,training, aptitude and ability to use information, turning it into knowledge.

Thus, I feel that the kind of equal opportunities we used to talk about ten years ago has changed.This is the new equality of opportunities. We are creating a new category, those who are poor interms of information, poor because they do not have access to education, information andtraining.

Furthermore, I absolutely agree with you that we must establish a clear priority and adopt aspecific programme to combat juvenile delinquency and inner-city crime. I believe that all theMember States should give priority to this issue, because we are creating time bombs whichwithin five years may pose an extremely serious threat to the democratic stability of the MemberStates. Hence, I believe that it would be better to look to the future and adopt a programme ofprevention which would of course include, as a priority, education and training instruments. It isbetter to do this today as prevention than tomorrow as a remedy.

Chairman. – Thank you, Mr Vitorino. It will not have escaped the notice of Parliament that theCommissioner-Designate has now answered questions in four languages. Only another seven togo.

Nassauer (PPE). – (DE) Mr Vitorino, one of the unsolved problems in your sphere of work isburden-sharing, especially as regards taking in refugees from civil war. The only conceivablesolution is for these refugees to be taken in by the Member States according to their capacity anda fixed quota, and the Member States should be able to meet their commitment by offering a sumof money only as an exception. Are you willing to support this principle wholeheartedly?

Are you also willing to establish firmly in Community asylum law the legal instruments of ‘safethird country’ and ‘safe country of origin’, to restrict inadmissible asylum applications?

What is your opinion of the fact that the national parliaments no longer do parliamentary workon Community asylum law and that the European Parliament does not yet do so? Are you willingto remedy this situation?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (DE) Thank you Mr Nassauer! I will answer you inEnglish, my German is very bad.

(Laughter)

(EN) That leaves me in a difficult position: which language will I use after what the Chairmansaid? If you do not mind, and with all due respect to the language of every one of you, I willanswer in my own language.

(PT) I agree absolutely with what you say.

Firstly, I will say that the European Refugee Fund must play an important role, with a view notonly to a permanent structural policy but also with a view to tackling emergency situations.

Secondly, there must be rules of solidarity between the Member States as regards taking inrefugees. This is a difficult issue which splits the Member States, but it is of essential importancefor the cohesion of the Union. I shall give you an example: five years ago I was a member of the

EN.doc 21/30

European Parliament, dealing with the third pillar. Then I was Defence Minister and waspromoted to the second pillar. Now, finally, I am back here and I have reached the first pillar. Itis my intention to use my experience in the first pillar to draw a parallel with the second pillar: ifthe Member States of NATO are capable of financing a military operation to ensure peace andsecurity in Kosovo or Bosnia, all they need to do is appeal to the same values to accept theirshare of responsibility in supporting the victims of these conflicts.

(Applause)

One last point. I believe that the Council High-level Working Party on Immigration and Asylumis about to produce a very interesting piece of work based on a multidisciplinary and inter-pillarapproach combining external action and internal action on immigration and asylum. We mustintegrate in the Community structure the concept of safe third countries and, above all, we haveto ensure that there are joint procedures for asylum. And I undertake to turn the Commission’sCommunication on common asylum procedures into a Community instrument under the terms ofthe EC Treaty.

And the European Parliament will be totally and fully involved in this process.

Pirker (PPE). – (DE) Mr Vitorino, in contrast with many other areas, you have in my opinionnot given adequate answers concerning migrant workers. This shows a certain discrepancy withthe other excellent answers you gave in your written list. You only mention the reunification offamilies as the main reason for immigration and you welcome immigration in order to establish afamily as a component of integration and a measure for achieving it. But aren’t jobs or places foryoung people and children in education or available accommodation and the acceptance of thepopulation the decisive preconditions for immigration into the European Union? Are you infavour of introducing guidance instruments for immigration into the Union?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (PT) I am pleased to answer your question by saying that apolicy for the integration of immigrants must be seen as an instrument for improving thecohesion of our society whilst respecting diversity. It is not a question of pursuing assimilationpolicies. It is a question of defining integration policies whilst respecting diversity. And this is tobe achieved through the educational system. The educational system must be flexible in order toadapt this merging of diverse cultures to the policy for integrating immigrants. I am notresponsible for education policy, but I can assure you that I will, together with CommissionerReding make all the necessary efforts to work together to persuade the Member States that if weare thinking about a policy for integrating immigrants 20 years from now, the major investmentis to be made today in the educational system.

I do not know whether I understood all the implications of your question – I must admit – asregards the tax instrument. If you could clarify what you were referring to exactly when youspoke about a tax instrument, I might be able to say something more.

Pirker (PPE). – (DE) Commissioner- designate, I think there were a number of mistakes in thetranslation of my question if you will allow me to say so. I meant whether available jobs in theUnion, available education places for young people coming from outside the Union, or thepopulation’s acceptance of an influx are not essential preconditions for immigration and theacceptance of migrant workers from third countries into the European Union and then I askwhether you are thinking of introducing guidance or regulating instruments, to guide and

22/30 EN.doc

regulate the influx of immigrants into the European Union according to the Union’s receptioncapacity?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (PT) I think I understand your question now. I feel that indrawing up an immigration policy, the ability of immigrants to be integrated in sensitive sectorssuch as the labour market, the educational system or vocational training is an important criterion.

We must not believe that the situation in the Union is the same now as it was 30 years ago andthat the immigration policy that was implemented then can be applicable now. But let me alsosay that I do not believe that immigration policy can be reduced to a mere question of how manyjobs can be made available for immigrants.

There are other equally important factors to be considered when drawing up an immigrationpolicy: the historical links between certain Union countries and certain regions of the world,cultural and linguistic links, and even the existence of communities from Union countries in thecountries of origin. Because we must bear in mind, that we, members of the Union, also emigrateto other countries and thus what I propose is an exercise in defining a set of criteria in which allthe criteria are duly balanced.

With regard to the distribution of immigration, I said earlier, when speaking about asylum, that Iam in favour of adopting solidarity clauses. It is more difficult to adopt these clauses in the areaof immigration, because the channels of immigration are much more spontaneous and natural,depending as they do on the decision of each immigrant, unlike in the case of asylum. Thesituations are different. It is now up to the Union to play a role in ensuring the cohesion of theMember States in the area of immigration policy too. And the distribution of tasks, if necessary.

Evans, Robert J.E. (PSE). – (EN) Mr Vitorino, earlier on you spoke about making Schengencredible. You have also acknowledged that Amsterdam Articles 61 and 62 create a new five-yeardeadline for implementing free movement and you say that this deadline cannot be broughtforward. Maastricht of course fixed a free movement deadline of 31 December 1992, some sevenyears ago, a date which appears again in the Amsterdam Treaty. You also know that theSchengen Protocol is now incorporated in the Treaty. So it seems that a structure that wasarguably created in a perhaps undemocratic manner without full parliamentary control, forexample, will now become EU legislation, thus overturning the democratically agreed Treaties.Are you satisfied with this? Secondly, what action will you take against countries that ignoretheir Schengen commitments? Finally, in the same vein, how will you enforce your commitmentto make free movement applicable to, for example, the Spanish-Gibraltar border and othersimilar frontiers.

Vitorino, Commissioner-Designate. – (EN) Yes, I think Amsterdam shows that we have come toa positive point in integrating the Schengen acquis in the framework of the Union.

Of course, the procedures that have been followed to integrate the Schengen acquis are – let mebe diplomatic – rather arguable. And the classification system is not satisfactory. I think wecould have been more ambitious in this respect. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that, in order tofulfil the objectives of the Amsterdam Treaty as far as the free movement of people is concerned,we will have to adopt a new Community instrument based on Articles 61 and 62 of the EUTreaty to replace the second Article of the Schengen Agreement and that is going to be theCommunity reverse of the system of Schengen. That is the starting point which I am proposingyou adopt in the next few years according to the action plan adopted in Vienna.

EN.doc 23/30

I think that all Member States should feel compelled to fulfil their obligations as regardsguaranteeing freedom of movement and we could work out some solutions to toughen up theconditions in which existing Schengen Member States introduce border controls. I am sure thatsince such border controls are punctual and last some hours, they would agree to a moresophisticated and fine-tuned legal framework for the reintroduction of those border controls,which could also include, of course, the question of Gibraltar.

I know it is a very sensitive question. I dealt with it five years ago when I was here at theParliament. I am aware of the efforts that Commissioner Mario Monti has made on this issue andI feel that it is my responsibility to be very realistic and to have a frank talk with bothgovernments involved, prior to expressing myself in public. I am sorry, I think this is the best forall concerned. Nevertheless, I think that if we are sincere in saying to the candidate countriescoming from central and eastern Europe that when they join the Union they will have to fulfil allthe Schengen obligations, including the obligations concerning the external borders, our positionwill be more credible if the existing Member States first solve all the outstanding problemswhich, to use a Chinese expression, have been left behind by history.

Schulz (PSE). - (DE) Mr Vitorino, we have now established that asylum will be granted to aperson persecuted by a state because of their political convictions, religion, sex, sexualorientation or ethnic origin. To an increasing extent, however, we have the problem of peoplebeing persecuted by organisations other than the state, meaning that the persecution of theasylum seekers does not originate with the state and that the state cannot or will not guaranteethe person’s safety. How do we deal with this category of person?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. - (PT) Let me answer once again – excuse me, it seems tobe an occupational hazard – with an example taken from matters under the second pillar. We allremember what happened in Somalia. What did the United Nations do in Somalia? It was atypical case in which the state disappeared, the country was handed over to warlords whoseraison d’être was to massacre their own people. Hence, the cause of persecution was not a statepersecuting its citizens, but warlords who, in the absence of the state, massacred the people.

In my view, this is a situation which creates refugees, and the Organisation of African Unityexplicitly recognised that these were refugees in the strict and precise sense of the word. Myinterpretation is that, in view of this example under the second pillar, we cannot help consideringas victims of persecution and hence, as refugees, for the purposes of applying the relevant legalinstruments, whoever is a victim of persecution by entities other than the state.

Boumediene-Thiery (Greens/ALE). – (FR) Commissioner-designate, the written answers yougave us seemed to augur well as regards your determination to make progress on the issueslinked to the area of freedom, security and justice. But you will understand that we cannot becontent with declarations of intent, generous though they are, because they are often made beforethe confirmation of a Commissioner and the Commission, and too often tend to remain a deadletter subsequently.

This is why I would like to ask you, for example, about your concept of a word which oftencomes up, ‘integration’. I should alike to hear your precise definition, because it is an all-purposeword used in very different circumstances, and I would therefore like you to be specific.

24/30 EN.doc

With regard to your work as Commissioner, are you ready, in the interests of extending theCommunity acquis, to extend certain rights to all residents of Europe: political rights, the freemovement of persons and the harmonisation of visa policy, but also the right of residence linkedto the right to live as a family, or the topical and often very painful issue of illegal immigrantswho have been living in Europe for a long time. I should therefore like to have a definition ofyour idea of European citizenship.

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (FR) As I have already shown, the ability to summarise isnot a Portuguese characteristic and I apologise. It is difficult to tell you my idea of citizenship inthree minutes.

However, I can give you a few indications. Firstly, I believed that I tried to show that my idea ofintegration is different from the concept of assimilation. They are two completely differentthings. And I will say even more – assimilation may be an effective instrument for preventingreal integration. Integration is achieved on the basis of diversity, respect for diversity – but thereis a limit: respect for human dignity.

Secondly, I feel that the question of the rights of nationals of third countries residingpermanently in the Union should be debated in the context of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.I will be frank with you. You will be disappointed: I do not think that all rights mustautomatically be extended to citizens of third countries living permanently in the Union, but Ican assure you that I intend to ensure the application of most of the rights included in theCharter. These include social rights, economic rights and even political rights. I cannot promiseyou that one day I will say ‘all’ political rights. There are limits. I am being very frank with you,at the risk of disappointing you.

Camre (UEN). – (DA) Mr Vitorino, I would very much like to elaborate in brief on the questionwhich Professor Krarup raised previously. As you know, in a referendum Denmark voted for anopt-out in the legal area, which, among other things includes immigration and asylum. How willyou as Commissioner deal with the problems which arise as a result of the majority of theMember States being expected to adopt a common immigration and asylum policy while oneMember State, that is Denmark, is outside of such a common policy ?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (PT) It is somewhat difficult to answer all the implicationsof this question. My personal opinion is that immigration and asylum policy would be mademore consistent if Denmark accepted unreservedly the incorporation of Title IV of the ECTreaty. But, of course, at present this is not the case and I believe that we must not burn ourboats or give up hope of persuading Denmark to join the area of freedom, security and justice, anarea appealing to the values which are undoubtedly shared by the Danish people. But it can onlybe achieved by political persuasion. I am convinced that the best instrument for persuadingDenmark to give up its position is to create a solid, consistent and credible immigration andasylum policy. And this is incumbent on us. We cannot let Denmark shoulder all theresponsibility.

Theato (PPE). – (DE) Commissioner-designate, we sat side by side five years ago, and both youand I asked questions. As chairman of the committee, I am today sitting near you and asking youquestions. The questions concern budgetary control. You are familiar with the PIF Convention of1995 which so far has been ratified by only four Member States, and the relevant protocols havealso not been ratified, although ratification should have been completed by the middle of 1998.Here too, we are dealing with corruption, and since allegations of corruption ultimately were

EN.doc 25/30

involved and contributed to the resignation of the former Commission, do you believe that thisConvention is still relevant, and that it can be implemented within a new deadline?

Do you intend to set a new deadline? If not, do you advocate transferring this matter wholly orpartially to Article 280 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and would you bring this subject up at thenext Intergovernmental Conference?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (FR) I am perfectly happy to answer your question, MrsTheato, and it was an honour for me to co-chair the hearing with you five years ago. Thesituation we now find ourselves in shows that some people know how to hold onto theirprerogatives. This applies to you. On the other hand, there are people who do not pay attention totheir future. This applies to me. In any case, I must answer you very frankly.

I remember very well the discussions which we had on the Convention, at the beginning. Now itis under the responsibility of Mrs Schreyer, but I am perfectly willing to collaborate with her,especially if it is a question of making all the tools of European judicial cooperation available tothe instruments that protect the European Union’s financial interests. It is disappointing that theConvention has not been ratified by all the Member States.

There is a contradiction between the political effort being made by the new Commission to adoptrules to combat fraud and corruption and, on the other hand, the differing attitudes of theMember States to the ratification of an instrument which was designed specifically to protect theUnion’s financial interests.

I absolutely agree with you that Article 280 is deceptive. It seems to provide what in actual fact itdoes not. I hope that at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference we can reconsider Article280. I myself believe that it is possible to resume consideration of the corpus juris with a view tosetting up a European judicial area which will boost investigations to protect the EuropeanUnion’s financial interests.

Morgan (PSE). – (EN) You have just referred to the corpus juris proposals and, whilst I acceptthat prime responsibility in terms of financial control is in Mrs Schreyer’s dossier, there is asubstantial amount that does impinge on the third pillar, as you have suggested.

Now, in terms of the corpus juris proposals, which of those proposals do you accept or do younot accept? If you could give us an answer to that and, specifically, if you could tell us whetheryou are in favour of setting up a European public prosecutor’s office.

Vitorino, Commissioner-Designate. – (EN) I have been advised that the problem is not myanswers. The problem lies with the following questions. I see I was properly advised.Nevertheless, I shall be very frank with you. Without wishing to be “vaniteux”, as the Frenchsay, the first time someone spoke about the existence of a European public prosecutor was in ajoint meeting right here, five years ago, and I was there. Modesty prevents me from sayinganything further on that issue even if I could add something else.

Well, I have sympathy for all of the three solutions – the judiciary network, Eurojust and theEuropean prosecutor – in different areas and in different capacities. It is coherent, from my pointof view, that a European public prosecutor would take care of the financial interests of the Unionbut I would not say that the public prosecutor should be in charge of all kinds of penal judiciarycooperation in other areas, except the protection of financial interests. Therefore, for certain

26/30 EN.doc

different issues I would definitely favour a system like Eurojust. I think that things have maturedsufficiently to get from the temporary council some enlightening decision on the Eurojust issuebecause, on the European public prosecutor, I think we should not discuss that separately fromthe real central issue which is not the instrument but the legal basis and the framework ofsanctions that can be used to protect the financial interests of the Union. I was properly advised Iam sure. The problem lies with the following answers really.

Mulder (ELDR). – (NL) Commissioner-designate, as you are aware, a committee of inquiry hasbeen looking into fraud in the Community transit system. One of the conclusions reached by thatcommittee of inquiry was that cooperation between customs services in Europe, i.e. in theEuropean Union, left much to be desired. One of the suggestions made was that customs officersbe seconded for six or four periods to other customs services. They would then be able tofamiliarise themselves with other working practices, etc. Do you think it would be a good idea toextend such arrangements to Europe’s police and judicial services, so that we are better able toprotect Europe’s financial interests in that way, too?

Vitorino, Commissioner-Designate. – (EN) To give you a very brief answer – yes, indeed I am. Ithink we have the instruments. We have to improve the customs information system and we haveto promote exchanges of field officers; not only of administrative law enforcement authoritiesbut also on the police and judiciary side because I think that, if we can sit them all around thesame table, each party will appreciate more fully the real needs of the others and we will escapefrom a zero-sum game which is the worst scenario.

Pirker (PPE). – (DE) I would like to ask a question on anti-drugs policy and your strategy,which was not answered as thoroughly as the rest. You may know that on several occasions inthe last one and a half years the European Parliament has clearly opposed the liberalisation andlegalisation of drug-taking by a clear majority. Are you in favour of continuing this approach andhow do you feel about possible further key issues, for example, in the field of prevention or theharmonisation of criminal law?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (PT) I believe that Parliament has made extremelyimportant progress over the last five years as regards dialogue between the various politicalgroups on the subject of combating drug-trafficking and the tackling of this issue in the MemberStates. It is a subject which splits political groups and which even has ideological implications. Iam perfectly aware of this.

I believe that here we should apply the first policy beginning with ‘P’ which I spoke aboutearlier: to be above all pragmatic and to set ourselves clear priorities. My first priority is tocombat drug-trafficking. And this fight against drugs must be achieved through action on the partof EUROPOL in close coordination with the police authorities in the Member States.

The second priority is a balanced strategy to reduce supply and demand, which means having anintegrated approach to the drugs issue, involving not only the Union’s internal policies butincreasingly the Union’s external policies. This means a close relationship with theCommissioners dealing with these matters, Commissioner Patten, Commissioner Lamy andCommission Nielson, because I am convinced that this issue affects those three sectors.

The third priority is to agree on what we are talking about, which is difficult in this sphere. Weoften talk about drugs but we are not all talking about the same thing. And thus I believe that theEuropean Monitoring Service in Lisbon has an important task, to harmonise a number of basiccriteria, both criteria on indicators and criteria for evaluating national drugs policies. The

EN.doc 27/30

harmonisation of the criteria for assessing the epidemiological indicators (with regard to bothcauses of death and the impact on infectious and contagious diseases, as well as the causes ofaddicts’ requests for treatment) seems to me a priority matter.

As the fourth priority I consider that we must obviously adopt instruments to facilitate theharmonisation of criminal law to combat drug trafficking. And I believe that there areinstruments which will facilitate this harmonisation.

The fifth and final priority is to define the risk groups. In this field, we must give priority to twoproblems: the addiction of young people under 18 years of age and efforts to reduce the numberof deaths caused by drug-taking.

Pirker (PPE). – (DE) My second question refers to EUROPOL. We have endeavoured to ensurethat EUROPOL increasingly takes over and is able to take over cross-border tasks in the sphereof cooperation too. What we do not have, however, is a possible instrument for controls by theEuropean Parliament. A possibility would be for the European Union’s budget to take overfunding EUROPOL, so that we would have a possibility of monitoring EUROPOL via budgetarycontrol, which would be perfectly sensible. My question is – do you advocate this step?

Vitorino, Commissioner-Designate. – The relationship between the European Parliament andEUROPOL has been a difficult one over the years. I do recognise that and I still remember theearliest days of this relationship because I had the opportunity and the honour to chair adelegation from the civil liberties committee that went for the first time to The Hague to visit theheadquarters of EUROPOL. I think we have improved our relationship. We are not quite bloodbrothers as yet but at least we can look each other in the eyes, which is a first step. Nevertheless,I do not think it would be very fruitful to use the shortcomings of integrating the budget ofEUROPOL into the European Community budget and via this approach aim to secure a certainparliamentary control over EUROPOL.

I think that the value that we are discussing here is a very important value. There should bedemocratic and judicial control of EUROPOL, for its own good. My personal feeling is that, inthe near future, some people will begin to realise that, in the interests of productivity andacceptance of an increased capacity of investigation of EUROPOL, judicial and democraticcontrol are essential and they cannot proceed with their own tasks if they do not get popularsupport and what they do is not under judicial supervision. That is my feeling. What is myproposal? I propose to act in another way. It is quite clear that Amsterdam has allocated newcompetences to EUROPOL. Those are very important competences and I think we should adoptthem by changing the EUROPOL convention. We should start reviewing the EUROPOLconvention to cover these tasks. That is the time to have a discussion with the Council and withEUROPOL on the questions I have raised: democratic control and judicial control ofEUROPOL. I know it is not that quick and easy but I sincerely believe it is the most pragmaticway.

Palacio Vallelersundi (PPE). – (ES) Mr Vitorino, I should like to know your views on the need– I will not say to harmonise, because harmonisation in criminal matters is out of place – but toestablish rules for co-ordinating certain essential minimum elements for the definition of certaintypes of infringement and the relevant penalties. I am talking in particular about offences againsthealth or financial offences which have a trans-national element.

28/30 EN.doc

You said that you were extremely interested in EuroJust. I want to talk about judicial cooperationin general terms. Do you not also consider that the draft Convention should be amended to allowrules to be established more flexibly and be simplified ? And do you not also consider that anumber of clear rules should be laid down for the execution of certain sentences in the criminalsphere ?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (ES) With regard to the question of harmonisation, Ibelieve that my conception of the area of liberty, security and justice is that we must decide onthe objectives at Union level and that progress towards these objectives is a task for the nationalauthorities, to be achieved by changing national law.

However, in certain sectors which have been communitarised it is up to us to decide the nature ofthe infringements and also the relevant sanctions. I am talking, for example, about Article 31(e).Interesting work could be done on proposing the harmonisation of the ‘facti species’ of theoffences mentioned in letter (e) of Article 31.

With regard to the notification of decisions, I believe that EuroJust is precisely the appropriateinstrument and that, moreover, we can also study uniform procedures for executing certain kindsof sentence. Judgments passed on trans-frontier offences, such as demands for payment of lowvalue or which are not contested and all claims referring to matrimonial relations and the settlingof disputes concerning parental authority. These are two sectors which I feel should be at theforefront of our future work.

Sousa Pinto (PSE). - (PT) Commissioner-designate, I have just one question to ask you. And Iwould like to say that I did not recommend to any of my colleagues any question which might bepotentially embarrassing for reasons of mere national politics.

At a time when the European Union is taking important steps towards recognising andsafeguarding fundamental rights in the context of European citizenship, to what extent do youintend to push for Parliament’s desired role in monitoring police activity involved inEUROPOL? Where do you draw the line between EUROPOL’s sphere of competence and thatof OLAF? Do you not consider parliamentary control to be an important precondition for an areaof freedom, security and justice worthy of the name?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. (PT) I shall answer you beginning with the mostcomplicated problem, the question of monitoring EUROPOL. I propose a pragmatic approach –EUROPOL has been fully operational in accordance with the Convention and the Protocol foronly about 3 months. And hence I consider that we must give it the opportunity to develop itsactivity in such a way as to produce results which will enable us to think about the solutionsadopted.

This does not mean that we should not amend the Convention in accordance with the newcompetences assigned to EUROPOL under the Treaty of Amsterdam. In this context I considerthat the Commission’s initiative to carry out this revision provides a good opportunity fordiscussing the issue of parliamentary control and the relationship between EUROPOL and therelevant judicial authorities.

The relationship between EUROPOL and OLAF is an extremely important matter. EUROPOLcomes directly under my sphere of competence, OLAF under that of Mrs Schreyer. I intend totackle together with her the possibility of drawing up a protocol to ensure that in areas of

EN.doc 29/30

common interest there are clear rules determining the relationship between OLAF andEUROPOL. In particular, protecting the Union’s financial interests, forgery of the euro andtrafficking in certain types of non-monetary forms of payment are subjects which I consider to berelevant to both institutions.

Ceyhun (Greens/ALE). – (DE) Commissioner-designate - if it depended on me, I would alreadycall you Commissioner - I will stay with the subject of EUROPOL, in order to make it clear –even if we will be repeating part of the question – how important this subject is for us, therepresentatives of the people. Some questions have been answered but as far as I am concerned,this question is still unanswered, even though you say we should first of all see how things turnout in practice and then decide how we can change them. Nevertheless, we the Greens currentlyhave enormous problems with the present form of monitoring, as far as the national parliamentsare concerned, because our colleagues are overloaded in work in this area.

Secondly, the question concerning the protection of data remains unanswered. Will you offer usthe opportunity to ensure that we can be reassured about EUROPOL’s current work in thissphere?

Vitorino, Commissioner-designate. – (PT) I should be pleased to answer your questions asclearly as possible. If I could establish the democratic control of EUROPOL today I would do so.But I can’t. And therefore I must say that I think that the time when this question should beraised is when the Convention is revised in order to assign to EUROPOL the new competencesenvisaged in the Treaty of Amsterdam. But I agree that it is not enough to leave the monitoringof EUROPOL up to the national parliaments. Therefore I shall say two very practical thingsconcerning our Parliament.

Firstly, Parliament is taking part in the process of amending the Convention following the Treatyof Amsterdam.

Secondly, I believe that Parliament must have a role to play in the monitoring of EUROPOL.

Thirdly, the EUROPOL issue is included in the three horizontal guarantees to which I referred atthe beginning of my introduction.

Camre (UEN). – Commissioner-Designate, could you elaborate on the question on which fieldsyou as a commissioner will begin your initiatives to obtain a harmonisation of criminal law inMember States? I ask this question, taking into consideration what you have already said, i.e.that there is very little political will in Member States to harmonise criminal law.

Vitorino, Commissioner-Designate. – My first priority is to propose a Community instrument toharmonise a definition and sanctions in relation to two crimes: traffic in human beings andcrimes against children. There is a second area where I think we can act. This is in commondefinitions of infringements under Article 31e of the EU Treaty. We have done a lot of workalready in this area to prepare to assume the responsibility of advancing common definitions inthese two areas. I hope I have answered your question.

(The Chairman thanked the Commissioner-designate and closed the public hearing)

30/30 EN.doc